Agenda packet — South Lake Tahoe City Council, June 21, 2022 (part 7 of 7)

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By By
City Clerk City Attorney
City of South Lake Tahoe City of South Lake Tahoe
1127
City of South Lake Tahoe – JKAE
PSA Amendment No. 5 to Master Agreement

AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
The Professional Services Agreement entered into on July 28, 2020, between the City of South Lake Tahoe, a municipal corporation (“CITY”) and JK Architectural Engineering (JKAE) (“CONSULTANT”) is hereby amended as set forth below.

The terms of the Professional Services Agreement are hereby amended to read as follows:

1. Scope of Services. In addition to the Scope of Services specified within the original Professional Services Agreement, dated July 28, 2020, this Amendment to the Agreement adds the work described within Exhibit A “Compensation Schedule”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby amended to include the additional fees and compensation included with Exhibit A, Amendment No. 5 to the Agreement.

2. Term/Time of Performance. The services by Consultant are to commence upon the execution of this Agreement and shall continue until all authorized work is approved by City. All such work shall be completed not later than May, 2025. Time is of the essence, and failure of Consultant to perform the services required by this Agreement, as amended, by May 2025 shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement as amended.

3. Compensation. Compensation to be paid to the Consultant, as defined within the original Agreement is hereby increased with this Amendment No. 5 by the sum of $855,428.00 as described within Exhibit A attached hereto. In no case shall Consultant compensation for work completed under this Agreement exceed the amended Agreement amount of $3,921,415 plus the additional fee of $885,428.00 for an amended total fee of $4,776,843 without written authorization from the City. Payment by the City under this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of defects, even if such defects were known to the City at the time of payment.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on the date first written above.

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CONSULTANT
By: __________________________ By: __________________________ Devin Middlebrook, Mayor Jordan Knighton
Partner JKAE
Business License # 008282

APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
_____________________________ __________________________ Heather Stroud, City Attorney Susan Blankenship, City Clerk CITY SEAL:
1128
AUBURN | TAHOE CITY | RENO | SAN JOSE
165 River Road, Suite 1, Tahoe City, CA 96145 530.583.9222 www.jkaedesign.com IMAGINE | DESIGN | CREATE

LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED
Contract Amendment 05 – Construction Administration Services DATE: March 21, 2022
CLIENT: City of South Lake Tahoe, Attn. Jim Marino
JOB#: 20-370
PROJECT: Recreation Center

PROJECT AMENDMENT
In accordance with the Professional Services Agreement for the above-mentioned project, dated July 28, 2020, and previous project amendments, this Letter of Authorization to Proceed confirms the following amendment to the contract:

Contract Amendment 05 – Construction Administration Services:

Construction Administration support and services as outlined in Prime Agreement (attached Exhibit A) and subsequent contract amendments based on previously-authorized scope changes and fee increases. This amendment is not a scope change, but rather our formal request for authorization of the Construction Administration phase fee. This fee is broken up below into phase 1 and phase 2 allocations. Only the phase 1 fee would be utilized for Spring/Summer/Fall 2022 construction administration support. The overall combined Construction Administration fee has not changed from what is shown, but not yet authorized, in the Prime Agreement (attached Exhibit A).

FEE AMENDMENT
Services Current
(Includes Amends 1-4)
Adjustments Revised
Programming & Concept Design $ 372,030.00 - $ 372,030.00 Schematic Design $ 655,750.00 - $ 655,750.00
Design Development $ 1,234,062.00 - $ 1,234,062.00
Construction Documents $ 1,385,979.00 - $ 1,385,979.00
Agency Review $ 205,705.00 - $ 205,705.00
Bid Support $ 67,889.00 - $ 67,889.00
Add Service 01: LEED IP $ 8,800.00 - $ 8,800.00
Amendment 05: Construction Administration $ 00.00 $ 855,428.00 $ 855,428.00 20% - Site (Phase 1) $ 171,085.60 $ 171,085.60
80% - Building (Phase 2) $ 684,342.40 $ 684,342.40
TOTALS $ 3,930,215.00 $ 855,428.00 $ 4,785,643.00
CONTRACT NOTE:

Other than the revised scope and fees as outlined above, nothing in this Amendment is intended to amend or revise any of the contract provisions for the executed Professional Services Agreement.

Please review and let me know if you have any questions.

Sincerely: Approved:
________________________________________ ___________________________________________ Chris Vicencio, Partner, C26985 Client Date
JK Architecture Engineering
___________________________________________
Print Name/Title
1129
City of South Lake Tahoe – JKAE
PSA Amendment No. 5 to Master Agreement
AMENDMENT No. 2 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
The Professional Services Agreement (C-029-2021) entered into on March 16, 2021, between the City of South Lake Tahoe, a municipal corporation (“CITY”) and SierraCon/CORE (“CONSULTANT”) is hereby amended as set forth below.

The terms of the Professional Services Agreement are hereby amended to read as follows:

3. Compensation. Compensation to be paid to the Consultant, as defined within the original Agreement is hereby increased with this Amendment No. 1 by the sum of $330,072 as described within Exhibit A attached hereto. In no case shall Consultant compensation for work completed under this Agreement exceed the amended Agreement amount of $791,243 plus the additional fee of $330,072 for an amended total fee of $1,121,315 without written authorization from the City. Payment by the City under this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of defects, even if such defects were known to the City at the time of payment.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on the date first written above.

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CONSULTANT
By: __________________________ By: __________________________ Devin Middlebrook, Mayor Joe Stewart
President – SierraCon/CORE
Business License # 009926
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
_____________________________ __________________________ Heather Stroud, City Attorney Susan Blankenship, City Clerk CITY SEAL:
1130
City of South Lake Tahoe Recreation & Aquatic Center
~ 1121 Ski Run Blvd ~ PO Box 7171 ~ South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 ~ 530-544-1030 ~ City of South Lake Tahoe May 25, 2022
Jim Marino
Capital Improvement Program and Facilities Program Manager Department of Public Works
1740 D Street
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
RE: Recreation & Aquatic Center CM/PM Services Proposal Dear Mr. Marino,
SierraCon, Inc. / CORE Construction (SierraCon) is appreciative of the opportunity to provide the City of South Lake Tahoe (CSLT) this proposal for Construction Management/Project Management (CM/PM) professional services for the upcoming Recreation & Aquatic Center project. This proposal serves as the basis of understanding for the Recreation & Aquatic Center project parameters and SierraCon’s scope of work to be provided.

1. PROJECT PARAMETERS & SCOPE OF WORK
The City of South Lake Tahoe new Recreation & Aquatic Center project is to be executed in two phases: Phase 1 – Site Work and Utility Relocation and Phase 2 – Building Construction and Final Site work. The project’s bidding period for Phase 1 is from May 5, 2022 to May 27, 2022 with a construction Notice to Proceed (NTP) anticipated on June 22, 2022 substantial completion of the project no later than October 15, 2022, and final completion no later than November 1, 2022. The project’s bidding period for Phase 2 is anticipated to commence in August of 2022 and be completed in September, 2022 with a construction Notice to Proceed (NTP) anticipated in October, 2022, substantial completion of the project no later than October, 2024, and final completion no later than November, 2024. SierraCon anticipates contract approval at the June 22, 2022 City Council meeting and beginning on-site services June 27, 2022 for Phase 1. Phase 1 on-site construction management duties are anticipated to end by November 1, 2022. Phase 2 on-site construction management duties are anticipated to start on November 1, 2022 and end on November 1, 2024. SierraCon has included a TASK for assisting with additional closeout for 3 months, through January, 2025.

2. SCOPE OF WORK
Construction Management is a professional service available with a goal of helping facilitate a project to it’s completion, while enforcing contract documents, documenting the process, mitigating risk for the owner, and providing quality assurance in the field. By providing the experienced, skilled professionals to augment CSLT, SierraCon will pay continuing attention to critical details throughout the project to better ensure success. SierraCon will act as advisors to CSLT, and in the field, and coordinate with the General Contractor(s), A/E team and CSLT to better assure project progress and accountability. SierraCon’s scope of work is based on the following direction from CSLT:

Manage Building and Site Construction on behalf of CSLT in Phase 1 and Phase 2 - a) Daily On-Site Construction Activity and Oversight, including but not limited to:
1131
City of South Lake Tahoe Recreation & Aquatic Center
~ 1121 Ski Run Blvd ~ PO Box 7171 ~ South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 ~ 530-544-1030 ~ - Being completely familiar with Contract Documents - Plans, Specifications, Contracts, Manufacturers Recommendations, etc. prior to start of construction
- Providing oversight of Contract Plans, Specifications, Contracts, Shop Drawings, RFI’s, CO’s, Force Accounts, etc. during construction - Complete Project Documentation including Daily Reports, Noted Deficiencies, Photo Logs, Issues Tracking, Communications, All A/E Correspondence, etc. – in software system independent of contractor documents - Coordination and Communication with A/E, with the understanding that the A/E is also an owner’s onsite representative, for all design code and specification questions, exceptions, clarifications, etc. - Coordination of Special Inspection (Material Testing, Performance Compliance Specifications, etc.). Requirements/Review Testing Results - Notify team of any deficiencies
- Coordination with Design Team for anything effecting design interpretations/ recommendations/changes
- Identify any material delivery out of sequence
- Observe and document actual progress versus estimated progress, record and report conditions that may cause a delay in completion of work. Provide monthly executive summary report to Owner.
- Attend Weekly Progress Meetings, and additional project meetings as needed/ requested
- Assist with IT/FF&E Coordination (contracted through CSLT) - Monitor Contractor & A/E Punchlist
- Receive and Review (In Conjunction with A/E) O&M Manuals - Receive and Review (In Conjunction with A/E) As-Built Drawings - Complete Project Closeout Documents, Reviews etc. (In Conjunction with A/E)
- Attend One Year Warranty Walk (In Conjunction with A/E) b) Coordinate as necessary, with El Dorado County Library and neighboring City of South Lake Tahoe campground and maintenance facility operations. c) Schedule review and management, including but not limited to, tasks, logic, resource loading, pay applications/invoicing, overall progress, recovery, etc. d) Shop Drawing/RFI/Submittal/CO/ASI/CCD/CR Reviews (In Conjunction with A/E) e) Review and coordinate with architect Pay Applications/Invoices. f) Receive and review for DIR prevailing wage compliance, as prepared and managed by General Contractors.
g) Coordination of Jurisdictional Requirements
h) All Project Communications and Coordination with CSLT Project Manager i) Change Management Analysis and Recommendations – processing, tracking & coordination included
j) Scheduling, Attending and Writing of Meeting Minutes for weekly OAC meetings. k) Contract and provide coordination with UNVC for Commission Agent and Commissioning Inspections based on UNVC proposal for Systems and Enclosures Commissioning dated 3/22/22, and the specific terms listed below:
- Based on the requirements of the specifications, failed tests typically require additional testing to meet performance goals. These tests will be billed to the client. It is the client’s responsibility to then bill the appropriate parties. - Assumes free and clear access to the test areas, and lifts and/or scaffolding as required to fully access the interior and exterior of the test specimens. 1132
City of South Lake Tahoe Recreation & Aquatic Center
~ 1121 Ski Run Blvd ~ PO Box 7171 ~ South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 ~ 530-544-1030 ~ - Assumes a water source will be available and capable of providing 5 gallons of water per hour per square foot of the test specimen (within 200 ft of the test area).
- Assumes a 110-volt power supply will be available (within 100 ft of the test area)

3. RATE SCHEDULE
Phase 1 Phase 2
2022 2023 / 2024

STAFF CLASSIFICATION HOURLY
RATE
HOURLY
RATE
Project Director / Executive 325 345
Director of Field Operations 250 265
Construction Manager 165 175
Assist. Construction Manager 145 154
Field Engineer 165 175
Field Engineer 165 175
Assist. Field Engineer - Punch List 140 148
Project Accountant 125 133
General Superintendent 215 228
MEP Manager 210 223
Schedule / Procurement Manager 160 170

4. ASSUMPTIONS, EXCLUSIONS, AND TERMS OF AGREEMENT
Assumptions –
• Adequate location provided for SierraCon’s job site office trailer to be placed on site with access to power, internet, and staff parking.
• Full access to site to be provided during working hours and when general contractor is on-site
• Base contract for Phase 1 is approximately 3.5 months (NTP to Substantial Completion) starting in June, 2022 and Phase 1 is approximately 23 months (NTP to Substantial Completion) starting in November, 2022, plus an additional month of administration assistance only for closeout.
• If the construction schedule is delayed, SierraCon reserves the right to adjust the Rate Schedule.

Exclusions –
• Procurement and management of special inspections – field coordination included • Procurement and management of FF&E purchase and installation – field coordination included
1133
City of South Lake Tahoe Recreation & Aquatic Center
~ 1121 Ski Run Blvd ~ PO Box 7171 ~ South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 ~ 530-544-1030 ~ • Procurement and management of SWPPP compliance consultant & inspections – field coordination included
• Management of A/E contract – field coordination included • Management of general contractor(s) contract – field coordination included • Overtime (Above allowance included in fee proposal)
Terms of Agreement –
• Time and material backup to be provided with invoice
• SierraCon invoice not tied to general contractor pay application approval • Owner requested additional services can be performed on T&M basis, based on rates included in this proposal
• Overtime rates are at time and a half plus added vehicle burden at straight time o SierraCon has included an Allowance for Overtime within the contract values. ~10% of base scope hours.
• If additional analysis of cost and/or schedule change management is required due to a dispute or claim, the work is to be completed as a change order to SierraCon to provide support on T&M basis, based on rates included in this proposal.

5. FEE SUMMARY

TASK COST
Phase 1 Base Scope of Work: $299,210
Phase 1 Scope Allowance Tasks: $30,862
Phase 1 Base + Allowances Total: $330,072
Phase 2 Base Scope of Work: $2,585,502
Phase 2 Scope Allowance Tasks: $936,158
Phase 2 Base + Allowances Total: $3,521,660
TOTAL BASE + ALLOWANCES: $3,851,732
Refer to Exhibit A’s, attached to this proposal, for detailed breakdown of proposed fee.

Sincerely,
Joe Stewart
President
1134
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Project Director $325 71 4 17 17 17 17
Construction Manager $165 356 20 84 84 84 84
Asst. Construction Manager $145 356 20 84 84 84 84
Field Engineer / Super $165 528 24 126 126 126 126
Director of Field Operations $250 71 4 17 17 17 17
Project Accountant $125 71 4 17 17 17 17

TASK COST
Document Control, Printing & Reproduction CostsVehicles ExpensesSoftware: ProCore / Bluebeam / Video ConferenceJobsite Trailer OfficeJobsite Toilets & Wash Facilities (for CM Team)Photography and Construction Records Construction Manager $248 36 2 8 8 8 8
Asst. Construction Manager $218 36 2 8 8 8 8
Field Engineer / Super $248 53 2 13 13 13 13
Vehicles $10 124 6 29 29 29 29

TASK COST
EXHIBIT A - City of South Lake Tahoe Recreation and Aquatic Center - PHASE 1 $20,310
$1,880$2,100
SCOPE ALLOWANCES - SUBTOTAL $30,862
BASE SoW (MANAGEMENT) - SUBTOTAL $247,320

BASE SCOPE OF WORK (CONSUMABLES)
BASE SoW (CONSUMABLES) - SUBTOTAL $51,890
$6,720
$12,180
$8,700

BASE SCOPE OF WORK - TOTAL
BASE SOW + ALLOWANCES - TOTAL $330,072
Overtime if Requested / Required
(Allowance ~10%)
$30,862

SCOPE ALLOWANCES
$299,210
TOTAL
TASK
HOURS
HOURLY
RATE

BASE SCOPE OF WORK (MANAGEMENT)
$247,320
Construction Management - On-Site
Management
(Construction Oversight Through Closeout)
(June 22, 2022 - November 1, 2022)

ANTICIPATED TASK STAFF CLASSIFICATION

MONTHLY SCHEDULE / HOURS
2022
Construction
1135
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Joe Irvin, City Manager
Meeting Date: June 21, 2022
Agenda Item #: 18
Agenda Item: Draft Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan FY22-23 Budget Appropriation Requests and Adoption of Capital Improvement Project Scoring and Ranking Criteria Executive Summary: The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) addresses the City’s needs relating to the acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation, and replacement of long-lived assets. The CIP serves as a planning instrument to identify needed capital projects and coordinate the financing and timing of improvements in a way that maximizes the return to the public.

The FY 22/23 draft five-year capital plan document is being proposed for future adoption during the City’s annual budget process and details the funding/expense of all projects within the five-year timeline including all projects funded by state, federal, and local grants. For purposes of this agenda item, we are introducing and discussing the FY22-23 capital appropriation requests to reinforce project priorities, discuss potential new projects, identify funding gaps, and review the proposed appropriations before adoption in August 2022.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Resolution adopting the Capital Improvement Project Scoring and Ranking Criteria.

Responsible Staff Member: Jim Marino, Capital Improvement Project Manager Responsible Staff Member: Jim Marino, Capital Improvement Project Manager (530) 542-6027 Reviewed and Approved By:

Anush Nejad, Public Works Director
Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
Olga Tikhomirova, Finance Director
Heather Stroud, City Attorney
Attachments:
01-Staff_Report.docx
02-Resolution - Capital Improvement Project Scoring and Ranking Criteria.docx 03-Ranking Criteria (Exh. A to Resolution)
04_Five_Year_Funding.pdf
1136
Council Agenda Report- June 21, 2022 Page 1 of 7
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: June 21, 2022
Title: Hear Staff Report on the Draft Five Year Capital Improvement Plan FY 22/23 Budget Appropriation Requests; and Approve Resolution Adopting CIP Priority Rating Criteria Location: Citywide
Responsible Staff Member: Jim Marino, Capital Improvements Manager (530) 542-6027 Background:

The Capital Improvement Program addresses the City’s needs relating to the acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation, and replacement of long-lived assets. The CIP serves as a planning instrument to identify needed capital projects and coordinate the financing and timing of improvements in a way that maximizes the return to the public and preserves City assets. It provides a planned and programmed approach to utilizing the City’s financial resources in the most responsive and efficient manner to meet its service and facility needs. It serves as a “blueprint” for the future of the community and is a dynamic tool, not a static document.

A critical element of a balanced CIP is the establishment of funds to both preserve or enhance existing assets and provide new assets to respond to changing service needs and community evolution.

The City’s Preserving Capital Investments Policy states the following:

The City invests in capital assets such as property, plant, equipment, facilities, and infrastructure.

Preservation of such investments through regular maintenance and a long-term renovation plan is necessary to preserve the value of such capital investments. The City must also plan for the replacement of capital investments (particularly vehicles and equipment). The following policy requirements are intended to ensure the proper accounting and preservation of capital investments; and to provide a sound economic base for their replacement.

1. The budget should provide sufficient funding for adequate maintenance, renovation, and the orderly replacement of capital assets such as equipment, fleet, facilities, streets, and parks.

2. All capital assets should be maintained at a level that protects capital investment and minimizes future maintenance and replacement costs.

3. A five-year schedule of equipment replacement and maintenance needs, as well as facilities, streets and parks renovation and maintenance needs should be prepared on an annual basis.

Expenditures consistent with such plans shall be included in annual budget appropriations. 1137
Council Agenda Report- June 21, 2022 Page 2 of 7
Issue and Discussion:

Capital improvement programming is a guide toward the efficient and effective delivery of public facilities, systems, and infrastructure. Programming capital projects over time can promote better use of the City’s limited financial resources and assist in the coordination of public and private development.

The FY 22/23 draft five-year capital plan document is being proposed for adoption during the City’s annual budget process and details the funding/expense of all projects within the five-year timeline including all projects funded by state, federal, and local grants. For purposes of this agenda item, we are introducing and discussing the FY22-23 capital appropriation requests to reinforce project priorities, discuss potential new projects, identify fund gaps, and review the proposed appropriations before adoption in August 2022.

On January 4, 2022 the City Council appointed two ad-hoc members to serve on the Capital Improvement Program Committee. This team is also comprised of technical staff from the city manager’s office, public works, parks and recreation, finance, public safety, and planning. The CIP Committee is responsible for reviewing and ranking capital project requests and providing recommendations to the City Council. This team also conducts an in-depth analysis of the impact of the capital program on cash flow and expenses, as well as the City’s ability to finance, process, design, construct, and ultimately maintain and operate projects.

Being aware that there are always more project proposals than can be funded in the upcoming annual and mid-year budget cycles, a project ranking process occurs to help establish priority for the limited funds. For the FY 22/23 assessment, the CIP Committee re-evaluated the existing project priorities adopted in 2012. The Committee found that the previous prioritization matrix was outdated and did not reflect the current desires or strategic priorities of the city. The Committee drafted a new prioritization matrix that includes current Strategic Plan goals and objectives, a new Sustainability category, and a scoring criterion for implementing projects from the city’s General Plan, Community Plans, and various Master Plans.

Attachment 02 contains the updated scoring criteria with a description. Staff is requesting City Council formally adopt the criteria (Attachment 03 – Resolution).

The Department of Public works has, over the last decade, made significant progress toward evaluating the condition of existing assets across all classes. Infrastructure decline is an ongoing cycle, and while there is significant work remaining in identifying, assessing, and planning for the replacement of assets within the city’s operation and maintenance (O&M) responsibilities, staff has determined, as of this report, that the city has an infrastructure and asset replacement order of magnitude necessity of roughly $530,252,768 over the next 20 years. While this seems daunting, this is not uncommon for a community our size and age. It is important to note that much can change in twenty years, certain assets may be removed from service, operational objectives may change, new technology, sustainability, modal shifts, etc., may all play a role in the CIP objectives, needs, and costs.

Moving forward, the CIP will show all projects scheduled that are new and are currently in phase throughout the five-year timeline whether funded in full, partially, or not funded at all. The premise being that our five-year plan is just that….”a programming tool and a plan”. As a basic tool for scheduling anticipated capital projects and capital costs, the CIP is a key element in planning and controlling future budget and debt service requirements. For this reason, the CIP moving forward includes projects where needs have been defined, but specific solutions for 1138
Council Agenda Report- June 21, 2022 Page 3 of 7
funding have not been identified (unfunded). By providing unfunded projects in the timeline, we acknowledge the need, and we also acknowledge a commitment to schedule. It is also critical to acknowledge the need to evaluate and create new funding sources, such as parcel tax, or other financing mechanisms, to address the 20-year CIP needs.

City staff are very adept at obtaining grants to support needs across many of the CIP Categories.

Whether it be FAA support of the Airport, various State and Federal grants supporting transportation and water quality projects, or grants serving hazardous fuels reductions, and sustainability. Our staff is incredibly talented at supporting the Capital Program via fund sources outside the City’s general fund or local fund pool.

However, grants do not support everything. Certain asset classes such as facility components, vehicles and equipment, and IT/Communications do not typically receive much if any, support for repair/replacement and fall within the realm of local funding. As stated earlier in this report, there is always a need greater than what the city’s undesignated general fund surplus can provide each year. In 2009, the city embarked on formally evaluating the roadway paving network. By 2012, the city had a completed a condition assessment and Pavement Condition Index (PCI) and was able to determine true needs and evaluate different funding scenarios. Subsequently, Measure S was approved by the voters in 2020 and annual funding is now being applied to the asset class.

In fact, the combination of Measure S funds and State Gas Tax SB1 (RMRA) funds, the city will be appropriating nearly $60 million to the roadway network rehabilitation over the next twenty years at current fund levels.

In 2010, the staff brought forward the condition issues of various park assets including the recreation center. In November 2016, voters passed Measure P, a citywide increase of the transient occupancy tax (TOT) by 2 percent with funds earmarked for a new recreation complex.

Subsequently, the first phase of the city’s new Multi-Generational Recreation and Aquatics Center is due to break ground summer of 2022 and is scheduled to be completed in November 2024.

The two examples above (Measure S & P), show the positive results when a thorough assessment of an asset class is performed, a strategic funding study is undertaken, and a funding program to support the asset class is established.

Contrary to popular belief, grants are not free money, and grants are not interchangeable for different things. Grants are very specific to use and lack much if any flexibility. Most grant sources require a monetary match from the agency. Typically, 10%, to 50% depending on the source. The grant matching funds are usually derived from the city’s general fund, and by committing to fund a project via grant revenue, the city is also committing to the matching funds, and in doing so, restricting available limited dollars for non-grant applicable operational and capital needs. While the leveraging of match funds from undesignated general funds for purposes of larger-scale grant acquisition is generally positive and maximizes project success, the city and staff should be cognizant of the potential to “overload” the CIP with grant-funded projects and further restrict available funding for operations and non-grant related capital.

Additionally, most grants require the project to be “shovel ready”. Preliminary studies, concepts, preliminary environmental, cost estimates, public outreach and other project metrics are required for successful grant consideration. These preliminary tasks often rely on the city’s undesignated general fund reserves to “seed” the project, and again restrict available general fund dollars for non-grant funded capital. Finally, the entire grant process from application through procurement, implementation, reporting, and closeout is very time intensive and requires significant staff 1139
Council Agenda Report- June 21, 2022 Page 4 of 7
support. The ability to advance the projects to a “shovel-Ready” stage is even more critical now with the Federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (FIJA). This bill has significant potential for the City of South Lake Tahoe during the next five years and in order to take full advantage of these grant opportunities, projects need to reach a “shovel-ready” stage, which requires the “seed” funds to advance the projects to a viable stage.

The city’s surplus funds, or undesignated general funds reserves calculated annually, are not solely obligated for capital programming. The city’s general fund reserves attempt to balance needs across all city operations, programs, and capital, thus there are many competing interests for the funds. Actual funds available for capital needs, are not known until all other cost accounting takes place, and as such, the planning of the annual CIP is somewhat dynamic.

Forecasting the fund is prudent, but really only provides information pertinent to the first step of the annual capital request process.

In consideration of the FY 22-23 capital budget requests and acknowledging the limited funds available from the City’s undesignated general fund reserve for capital, staff has proposed a twostep programming process. Staff, with the recommendations of the CIP Committee, Finance Department and City Manager’s Office have vetted the requests, deferred projects to future fiscal years, and are proposing a staggered appropriation of funds for the remaining project requests.

The staggered approach allows the funding of some projects at the annual budget process and defers, but prioritizes, funding the remaining FY capital requests at mid-year budget cycle dependent upon actual available funds. This process allows for a bit of float during the fiscal year allowing the annual budget process to prioritize operational and program requests, and the midyear budget process to prioritize capital requests.

Financial Implications:

The FY 22/23 Capital Improvement Plan sets into motion the delivery of specific projects, and maintenance tasks required to protect and upgrade existing assets or undertake planning and construction of new assets in accordance with existing City goals, objectives, plans, and policies.

For the upcoming Fiscal Year (22/23) Attachment 04 provides the detail regarding the five-year capital project appropriation requests proposed by category and fund. Please note that the focus is year 1 (FY22-23).

A summary of FY22-23 budget appropriation requests is listed below in Table A.

Fund Source Request
General Fund Request – Annual Budget Adoption $625,000
General Fund Request – Mid-Year Budget Earmark $3,388,750 ARPA (Round 2) $2,100,000
Safety Sales Tax (Prop 172) $100,000
State Gas Tax (SB1 – RMRA) $518,128
Capital Reserve Fund (310) $80,000
Measure S (102) $3,500,000
Parking Garage Fund (520) $750,000
Measure P (Rec Center) $10,000,000
Lease Revenue Bonds (Rec Center) $45,000,000
TOTAL $66,061,878
Table A – Funding Request – FY 22-23 CIP
1140
Council Agenda Report- June 21, 2022 Page 5 of 7
Table B below provides budget appropriation requests by Functional Area.

Functional Area Request
Airport/Aviation $223,750
Facilities/Buildings $56,895,000
Parks/Greenbelts/Grounds $120,000
Public Safety – Fire $2,800,000
Public Safety – Police $230,000
Streets/Trails/Walks $4,393,128
Storm Water/NPDES $900,000
Vehicles/Equipment1 $0
Sustainability $500,000
IT/Communications $0
TOTAL $66,061,878
Table B – CIP Requests by Functional Area
Table C below identifies the project and the requests by proposed distribution in annual budget process and mid-year budget process:

PROJECT FUND ANNUAL
BUDGET

MID-YEAR
BUDGET
1 Hazardous Fuels Reduction Airport Meas. S (102) 200,000 2 Grant Match – FAA Pavement GF (36300) 10,000
3 Grant Match – FAA eAlp Survey GF (36300) 13,750
4 Rec Center Construction Measure P 55,000,000
5 Roof Replacement – PD Bldg. GF (36300) 675,000
6 Bellamy Garage Improvements GF (520) 750,000
7 Annual Appropriation (310) GF (310) 200,000
8 Services Center Improvements (grounds) GF (36300) 150,000 9 Exterior Paint – Stateline Transit Center GF (36300) 60,000 10 Flooring/paint – Fire Station 1 GF (36300) 60,000
11 Lakeview Commons – Electrical GF (36300) 40,000
12 Campground Tent Platforms GF (310) 80,000
13 FS II Reserves (Measure S) Measure S
(102)
500,000
14 FS III Construction Funds ARPA 2,100,000
15 FS IV Renovations GF (36300) 200,000
16 PD Community Resource Ctr Construction Prop 172
Safety
100,000
17 PD Sally Port Parking Reconstruction GF (36300) 130,000 18 Annual Traffic Safety, calming, flood mitigation GF (36300) 150,000 19 Mobility and Transit Hub Study – South Wye GF (36300) 100,000 20 Stateline Ave Complete Streets – Prelim Planning Measure S (102)
100,000
21 Tahoe Valley Greenbelt – Split $425k at annual and
$425k mid-year
GF (36300) 425,000 425,000
22 Annual Roadway Rehabilitation SB1 (RMRA) 518,128
23 Annual Roadway Rehabilitation Measure S
(102)
2,500,000
24 Palmyra Bike Trail Prelim Design GF (36300) 100,000
25 Dark Sky Lighting Retrofit Phase II GF (36300) 75,000

1 Contained in the annual operation budget
1141
Council Agenda Report- June 21, 2022 Page 6 of 7
26 Storm Drain Replacement Fund – Split $200k at
annual and $700k at mid-year
Measure S
(102)
200,000 700,000
27 City Facility Efficiency Upgrades (Sustainability
Program)
GF (36300) 300,000
28 Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure – PD Facility GF (36300) 200,000 TOTAL $62,673,128 $3,388,750
Table C – Project Request Distribution – Annual Budget Process and Mid-Year Budget Process ** Items 18 and 23 are split between annual and mid-year Table D below provides requests deferred to future fiscal year.

PROJECT REQUEST $ FUND
1 Construct Taxi Lane D Paving 620,000 GF (36300)
2 South Hangar Door Maintenance Program 90,000 GF (36300) 3 Melba Drive Gate Replacement 110,000 GF (36300)
4 Replace Roof – Ice Arena 1,600,000 GF (36300)
5 Fire Suppression – Ice Arena 120,000 GF (36300)
6 Regan Beach Concessionaire Bldg. Repairs 40,000 GF (36300) 7 On-Call Mechanical/Electrical Contractor 100,000 GF (36300) 8 Ice Arena Locker Rooms/Restroom Renovations 200,000 GF (36300) 9 Paint Exterior – 1740 D Street 60,000 GF (36300)
10 Renovate Information Kiosk (airport lobby) 20,000 GF (36300) 11 Regan Beach Park Renovation Project (Planning) 50,000 GF (36300) 12 Campground/Main Street Preliminary Planning 250,000 GF (36300) 13 Golf Course Clubhouse Relocation (Planning) 50,000 GF (36300) 14 Phase II – Al Tahoe Cemetery Improvements 75,000 GF (36300) 15 Citywide Traffic Collision Analysis/Inventory 50,000 GF (36300) 16 Dennis Machida Trail Phase 1C Planning Grant Match 110,000 GF (36300) 17 Pedestrian Lighting Pole Stock 15,000 GF (36300)
18 Bicycle Wayfinding Program (Tahoe Valley Plan 25,000 GF (36300) 19 Purchase (1) Caterpillar Front End Loader 645,000 GF (36300) 20 Replace (1) Dump Truck 137,500 GF (36300)
21 Purchase (1) B/U Generator – Flood Pump System 40,000 GF (36300) 22 Replace (2) Chevrolet 2500 HD Pick Up Trucks 110,000 GF (36300) 23 Replace Fleet Services Mobile Mechanics Van 175,000 GF (36300) 24 EV Charging Infrastructure – Public Use Locations 500,000 GF (36300) 25 Purchase (4) Electric Vehicles – General Fleet 226,400 GF (36300) 26 Purchase (4) EV Patrol Vehicles for PD 300,000 GF (36300) 27 Install Telemetry Based Facility MEP Controls 120,000 GF (36300) 28 Install Fiber Optics to Ice Arena 100,000 GF (36300) 29 Install Video Surveillance at FD Locations 100,000 GF (36300) TOTAL DEFERRED $6,038,900
Table D – Deferred Requests to Future FY
Environmental Considerations:

Receiving this report and providing direction to staff is not approval of a project subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines sections 15352 and 15378 because it does not commit the City to a definite course of action regarding the projects listed within the Capital Improvement Plan and does not have the potential for resulting in either a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment.

Policy Implications:

The proposed CIP requests and Policies are consistent with:

Strategic Plan
Priority 1 – Built Environment, Goal 1.2 – Mid-Town Revitalization, Action 1.2 – Complete the new Recreation and Swim Complex.
1142
Council Agenda Report- June 21, 2022 Page 7 of 7
CIP Financial Policy
The City Council shall adopt the annual CIP that addresses all capital investments planned for the budget year and for the subsequent budget years at the same time as the adoption of the Annual Budget.

Annual Appropriation Requirement
The capital budget represents only the first year of the CIP. The primary difference between the capital budget and the CIP is that, through the annual Appropriation Resolution passed by the City Council, the Capital Budget legally authorizes expenditures during the upcoming fiscal year. The CIP includes the first-year projections as well as future projects for which financing has not been secured or legally authorized. The funding allocation for future years of the CIP is therefore subject to change.

Project Manager
Every capital improvement project will have a project manager who prepares the project proposal, ensures that required phases are completed on schedule, authorizes all project expenditures, ensures that all regulations and laws are observed, and periodically reports project status.

Statement of Fiscal Impact on the Operating Budget
Each approved CIP project will contain a statement of fiscal impact on the annual operating budget and the source of funding.

General Plan Policy TC‐1.4: Capital Improvement Program Funding. The City shall provide for sufficient funding to finance the transportation projects in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP).

General Plan Policy TC‐1.5: Street Repair Program. The City shall maintain and implement the Pavement Management Plan and maintain a street repair program that ensures sufficient funding for maintenance of South Lake Tahoe’s Street System.

General Plan Policy PQP‐1.6: Capital Improvement Program. The City shall review and update yearly the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to ensure the implementation and adequacy of the plan.

General Plan Policy PQP‐1.8: Financing and Prioritizing Maintenance of Existing Infrastructure.

The City shall identify operations and maintenance costs and priorities for existing infrastructure, and identify and develop a fair, equitable, and stable fiscal program to finance the ongoing maintenance of infrastructure.
1143
Resolution 2022-XXX June 21, 2022 Page 1 of 2
Resolution 2022-XXX
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe
City Council
June 21, 2022
Adopting Capital Improvement Program Project Ranking Criteria

BACKGROUND
A. On January 4, 2022 the City Council appointed two ad-hoc members to serve on the Capital Improvement Program Committee. The CIP Committee is responsible for reviewing and ranking capital project requests and providing recommendations to the City Council.

B. The CIP Committee re-evaluated the existing project ranking criteria adopted in 2012. The Committee found the previous ranking criteria were outdated and did not reflect the current desires or strategic priorities of the city.

C. The Committee drafted new ranking criteria that incudes current strategic plan goals and objectives, a new sustainability category, and a scoring criterion for implementing projects from the city’s General Plan, Community Plans, and various Master Plans.

BASED ON THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE BACKGROUND, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of South Lake Tahoe:

1. Adopts the Capital Improvement Program Project Ranking Criteria (attached hereto as Exhibit “A”) for use in evaluating all projects proposed for the Capital Improvement Program.

Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council on June 21, 2022 by the following vote:

Yes:

No:

Absent:

Abstain:
______________________________________ Date: _________
Devin Middlebrook, Mayor
Attest:
____________________________________
Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
The presence of electronic signature certifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy as approved by the South Lake Tahoe City Council.
1144

2022
Capital Project Ranking
Criteria

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMMING

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
1145

CAPITAL PROJECT RANKING PROCESS
Most often, projects are forwarded to the team by a sponsoring department or division. Being aware that there are always more project proposals submitted than can be funded within the annual budget, the CIP Development team conducts a project ranking process. While project rankings are important in determining recommended priorities, the realities of the City’s financial situation are critical to all decisions. All projects are scored numerically for a total score. The total score then is multiplied by a risk analysis score which provides the final project ranking occur.

Table B – Project Ranking Criteria
Strategic Priorities ‐ Strategic Priorities are priorities set by City Council that are set to drive long term planning and implementation towards the goal(s) set forth within the Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan allows for focus in five areas: Built Environment, Recreation and Equitable Access, Community for All, Economic Development, and Continuous Improvement.

NOTE: The City’s Strategic Plan can be found here:
https://www.cityofslt.us/DocumentCenter/View/15374/Strategic‐Plan‐2021‐2026‐ FINAL?bidId= for more information.

1.0 Built Environment
Meet the needs of residents, businesses, and
the environment by investing in redevelopment
that creates local hubs that promote use of
alternative transportation and supports
economic prosperity. Incentivize the growth of
local serving and remote commercial businesses
by providing high speed internet and a world
class urban environment. Minimize the impact
our built environment has on Lake Tahoe
including stormwater pollution, litter, and
wildfire threats. Achieve carbon‐neutrality as a
community and work to become resilient
against known climate impacts.

How much impact will the proposed
project improve what exists or develop
new assets based on the Built Environment
Strategic Priority criteria of:

1.1 Broadband for All

1.2 Mid‐Town Revitalization

1.3 Housing

1.4 Transportation

1.5 Carbon Neutrality
The scoring scale is 1 to 10 and the scoring
is assigned as LOW (1‐3), MEDIUM (4‐6)
and HIGH (7‐10) impact, and are based on
how the project contributes to the overall
improvement of infrastructure across all
asset classes i.e., roads, curbs, drainage,
pipe work, facilities, utilities, etc.

2.0 Recreation and Equitable Access
Elevate the recreation experience provided by
the city to attract visitors and residents.

Promote equitable access to recreation to
underserved communities. Leverage city
recreation assets and the 56‐acre development
How effective will the proposed project be
in directly or indirectly improving
Recreation and Equitable Access based on
the Strategic Priority criteria as follows:

2.1 Parks and Recreation Master Planning
1146
to provide outdoor and organized recreation
activities. Use recreation as an economic
development tool to attract outdoor based
companies and businesses, sporting and
outdoor events, and conventions and trade
shows to become the Outdoor Capitol of the
World.

2.2 Equitable Access

2.3 Connectivity
Scoring is 1‐10 and the points assigned
should reflect a LOW (1‐3), MEDUIM (4‐6),
and HIGH (7‐10) impact regarding projects
that will preserve or improve recreational
opportunities and assets.

3.0 Community for All
Develop a greater sense of community and
connection by investing in community services,
resources, gathering areas, events, and
dialogue. Give a voice to all community
members to ensure the diversity of the
community is represented in city decision‐
making. Be a community leader to drive
dialogue and resolution to contentious
community issues. Diversity is critical in that the
greater sum of many voices to one shared goal
gives each voice a stake in a positive outcome
How will the proposed invest in community
services, resources, gathering areas and
events based on the criteria of:

3.1 Mental Health and Homelessness

3.2 Inclusion and Diversity

3.3 Arts and Culture Program

3.4 Waste Management and Stewardship
The scoring is 1‐10. The points assigned
should be considered as LOW (1‐3),
MEDIUM (4‐6), and HIGH (7‐10).

4.0 Economic Development
Support the South Lake Tahoe community on
COVID recovery efforts, while implementing a
“Green Jobs Initiative.” Develop a strategy to
attract and retain companies and workers that
live in Tahoe. Create a future where our kids
can live and work in Tahoe as adults and build
the necessary infrastructure and provide
incentives to achieve the strategy. Support and
incubate a local culture of entrepreneurship
and craft where knowledge workers and the
creative class can thrive. Invest in creating a
higher quality, regenerative tourism industry
that mitigates negative impacts.

How effective will the proposed project be
at improving or creating diverse economic
development based on the Strategic
Priority criteria of:

4.1 Economic Diversification Strategy

4.2 Support Development of a
Regenerative Tourism Model

4.3 Resident Retention and Workforce
Development
Points scale is 1‐10 and points assigned
should be considered LOW (1‐3), MEDIUM
(4‐6) and HIGH (7‐10).

5.0 Continuous Improvement
Improve city government capacity, customer
service, and efficiency through continuous
improvement initiatives. Deliver high quality
services to the community including public
safety, fiscal sustainability, well maintained
public infrastructure, and excellent parks and
recreation services. Utilize modern technology
How effective will the proposed project be
in improving government services and
infrastructure based of the Strategic
Priority actions of:

5.1 Public Safety

5.2 Digital Government

5.3 Infrastructure and Maintenance
1147
to do more with less and to stay relevant with
community expectations. Create a culture of
leadership, empathy, and empower employees
to have a yes‐first attitude.

5.4 Local Control

5.5 Fiscal Sustainability and Resiliency
The point scale is 1‐10 with points
assigned to be an impact score of LOW (1‐
3), MEDIUM (4‐6) and High (7‐10)
Program Criteria ‐ Programmatic assessments are categories of program management with regard to Capital Planning. Critical Replacement, Health & Safety, General and Area Plan Impact, Regulatory Compliance, and Sustainability. All projects proposed for the Capital Program shall be measured against these five categories.

1.0 Critical Replacement
Critical Replacement is defined as the criticality
in replacing/repairing the asset before cost
becomes too burdensome and the cost to
repair or maintain has exceeded standard
industry replacement values.   Critical
Replacement can be measured in several ways:
age of asset, condition of asset and/or non‐
compliance of an asset.  Most assessments of
Criticality of Replacement are done by
Condition Assessment where the asset is
inspected and assigned a condition that details
"life remaining".  It is prudent for the city to
replace when replacement is affordable versus
waiting and postponing until such time
replacement is costly and often involves
ancillary assets that have also deteriorated.

The point scale is 1‐10 with points
assigned as LOW (1‐3), MEDIUM (4‐6), and
HIGH (7‐10). In most cases an asset with a
LOW or even MEDIUM criticality may not
be shown on the current year FY Capital
Plan unless other programmatic priorities
raise the scoring enough to be considered.

2.0 Health and Safety
Health and Safety is defined as a priority. This
category scores the proposed project against
the potential for health and safety
consequences to employees and the public. It
is important to consider when assigning the
score if the project itself is directly correcting
the issue, or if the issue can be corrected by a
mitigated minor expense within the project
scope.

Example:  Replacing a fire truck would be
considered a high score as it is directly needed
Scoring scale is 1‐10 with the points
assigned as LOW (1‐3), MEDIUM (4‐6), and
HIGH (7‐10).  Examples of HIGH score
would be anything that would immediately
prevent or limit a potential accident, while
a MEDIUM might be the potential exists
through the project to address some safety
items.
1148
for public safety and the mitigation of public
emergencies.   However, doing an office
renovation may not score as high due to the
fact the  primary project (office renovation) is
not solely addressing safety mitigation but is
doing so as a component of the project.

3.0 General and Area Plan Impact
This category weighs the project application
against the specific project goals and objectives
of the City’s General and specific Area Plans.

Information regarding the city’s General Plan or
specific Area Plans can be found here:
https://www.cityofslt.us/1031/Adopted‐Plans
Examples of high scoring projects may be
Projects specifically called out in the plans such
as streetscape, parks, facilities etc. Examples of
projects that may score moderately may be
projects that would include components or
subcomponents of projects specifically called
out for in the plan. Low scoring projects, would
be projects minimally tied to the plans.

The point scale is 1‐10 and the points
assigned shall be considered LOW (1‐3),
MEDIUM (4‐6), and HIGH (7‐10).

4.0 Regulatory Compliance
As the title implies; this category addresses the
impact the proposed project will have with
regard to accomplishing mandated regulatory
compliance associated with the asset itself or
the program the asset supports.

Examples of Regulatory control are CARB
Emissions compliance, NPDES compliance,
Environmental Threshold Compliance, Public
Safety Standards, ADA etc.

The point scale is 1‐10 and the points
assigned shall be considered LOW (1‐3),
MEDIUM (4‐6), and HIGH (7‐10).

5.0 Sustainability
This program criteria evaluates the proposed
project against the city’s goals and objectives of
the Climate Action Plan (CAP) and Net Zero
goals.

Information regarding the CAP can be found
here:
https://www.cityofslt.us/1126/Sustainability
Examples of projects that may score high in this
category are:  Stand‐alone micro‐grid projects
serving city facilities, Major systems
The point scale is 1‐10 and the points
assigned shall be considered LOW (1‐3),
MEDIUM (4‐6), and HIGH (7‐10).
1149
replacement to energy efficient systems,
purchase of EV cars, and trucks, major facilities
battery back‐up systems, biomass projects to
name a few.  Examples of projects that would
score moderately may be Facility lighting
retrofits, repower of diesel equipment, timing
controls on major systems,  lighting and
irrigation etc.   Examples of projects that may
score low could be purchase of fossil fuel
equipment, replacing equipment in kind, minor
room and or space retrofits etc.

Return on Investment (R.O.I.) ‐ The ROI Priority is defined to forecast the proposed Return on Investment the project may generate. There are five sub‐categories of Return on Investment as defined below. All projects submitted will be scored against these criteria.

1.0 Visual Impact
The Visual Impact Category is meant to assign a
score for the effect the project would have
visually throughout the entire city or portions of
the city to both residents and visitors.  An
example of higher scoring projects would be
major parks improvements, major facilities, new
roads, streetscape projects, visual
improvements such as signage, banners,
lighting, public art, public safety, and snow
removal equipment.   Projects that would
typically score low may be isolated projects
within facilities not exposed to the public,
underground Infrastructure, etc.  This ROI
category is demonstrating the scope of the
project to be visible by many people which
would further public trust.   Highly visible
projects tend to get the community on board
with future projects.

The point scale is 1‐10 with points being
assigned as LOW (1‐3), MEDIUM (4‐6), and
HIGH (7‐10).

2.0 Savings to Operating Costs
Savings to Operating Costs is fairly straight
forward. Operating costs are defined as costs
to operate the asset or the program of the
asset. Typically, Operating costs are Labor,
Overhead, Utilities, Asset Supplies, and Asset
Maintenance for the life of the asset.

The point scale is 1‐10 and the points
assigned shall be LOW (1‐3), MEDIUM (4‐
6) and HIGH (7‐10)
1150
Cost savings occur when there is a reduction
that causes future O&M spending to fall below
the level of current spending. These cost savings
may then be removed from budgets,
reinvested, or redirected to other spending
priorities.

3.0 Direct Revenue Generation
Direct Revenue is defined as funds received into
the city’s general fund directly from the project
or a program supported by the project.

Example: A new parking ticket reader at the
parking garage would score fairly high in this
category as the funds received as a result of the
installation are going directly to that program
operation with excess flowing to General Fund.

On the other hand, Roadwork would not score
high in this category because the actual project
does not support direct revenue, but the
roadway work might score higher in the indirect
category as good roads may increase tourism
and indirect revenue.

The point scale is 1‐10 and points assigned
are LOW (1‐3), MEDIUM (4‐6) and HIGH
(7‐10)

4.0 Indirect Revenue Generation
Indirect Revenue is defined as the funds
received into the city’ general fund indirectly
from the project or program supported by the
project.  Example:  The Lakeview Commons Park
Project generates both direct and indirect
revenues.  Direct revenues result from the
leases for the concessionaires that rent the
facilities, and contracts and permit fees for
special events, but the park also generates
indirect spending in the Harrison Avenue
commercial core which translates into sales tax
as other indirect revenue supporting the
General Fund.  When evaluating the indirect
revenue, you must be conservative as only the
largest projects or programs would be capable
of setting a high return of indirect revenue.

The point scale is 1‐10 and points assigned
are LOW (1‐3), MEDIUM (4‐6) and HIGH
(7‐10)
1151

5.0 Cost Avoidance
Cost avoidance refers to reductions that cause
future spending to fall, but not below the level
of current spending. Often, cost avoidance
involves slowing the rate of cost increases. In
other words, future spending would have
increased even more in the absence of cost
avoidance measures. From the standpoint of
cost‐benefit analysis, both cost savings and cost
avoidance can be counted as taxpayer benefits,
because both reduce the amount of resources
necessary to fund government operations.

Examples of projects providing high‐cost
avoidance may be: The timely replacement of
assets such as vehicles and equipment before
maintenance costs and parts inventories
become excessive. The repair or replacement
of key facility infrastructure that upon
exceeding lifespan would place future financial
burden on the City.

The point scale is 1‐10 and the points
assigned shall be LOW (1‐3), MEDIUM (4‐
6) and HIGH (7‐10)
Risk Analysis – The Risk analysis is a multiplier added to the scoring average from the criteria’s listed above. The multiplier increases as potential impacts from asset failure are greater.

1.0 Risk Analysis Multiplier
Risk Analysis Score is the category that truly
influences the prioritization of projects in que.

The preliminary score may be very close for
many projects and therefore determining the
most important project may not be realized
until there is a factor assigned to the impacts of
failure.

For example: two projects may rank very high in
the preliminary scoring and all things being
equal, the proponents of those projects want
each to be priority. The city then applies a risk
factor to the equation which is a multiplier to
The multiplier is a scoring scale of 1.1 to

1.9 and points assigned are defined as:

LOW IMPACT (1.1 to 1.3). LOW IMPACT
considers the failure of the asset to cause
minor disturbance to overall operations
and public necessity. Typically, LOW
IMPACT asset failure can be repaired or
replaced within normal timelines and/or
very minor accelerated timelines.

Programs may be affected but can still be
managed.

MEDUIM IMPACT (1.4 ‐ 1.6). MEDIUM
IMPACT considers the failure of the asset
1152
the preliminary score which will likely show one
project of higher importance.

Examples of MEDUIM and HIGH IMPACT risk
might be potential failure of multiple pieces of
snow removal/ public safety equipment. Loss
of communications and hardware for integral
public safety operations, severe hazard
mitigation of vegetation for fire prevention, loss
of key facility infrastructure such as weirs,
pumps, dams, bridges, chillers, boilers, etc.

Examples of LOW impact may be failure of
specific system sub‐components such as HVAC,
electrical or plumbing, roof leaks, irrigation
damage, stormwater system failures that do not
cause property damage, carpeting, paint, etc.
to definitely impact programs or services
and may require immediate changes or
alterations to operations and services to
address the issue. Impacts to the public
may occur and replacement and or repair
will need to be accelerated in order to
minimize the longevity of impacts.

HIGH IMPACT (1.7 ‐ 1.9) HIGH IMPACT
considers the failure of the asset to
severely impact the service or program
and will definitely impact the public in
some means. HIGH IMPACT issues will
typically require emergency action by City
Council with regard to urgent fund
allocation towards repair or replacement.

Staff involvement is high as programs,
services are severely altered or suspended
entirely, and alternate systems are
implemented. Public Information avenues
need to be evaluated and may involve
significant public outreach, reverse 911
notifications and other means to keep the
public notified.
1153
Functional Area Project Name Roll Forward 22/23 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27 Total AP ‐ Airport/Aviation
501XXXXX_2021_02 Fire Prevention ‐ USFS Stevens Authority Grant ‐ Airport Units 3&4 Unfunded
00000 - Unfunded $ - 50,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 50,000 $
501XXXXX_2022_01 Fire Prevention ‐ CALfire Haz Fuels Grant ‐ 85.77 Acres Local ‐ Measure S
36374 - Transfer In from Measure S (102) $ - 200,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 200,000 $ Unfunded
00000 - Unfunded $ - 622,260 $ - $ - $ - $ 622,260 $
501XXXXX_2022_02 Planning Study ‐ Pavement Maintenance Management Plan Local ‐ General Fund
36300 - General Fund Transfer - Operating Account - $ 10,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 10,000 $ 501XXXXX_2022_03 S. Hangar Door Maintenance & Part Replacement Program Local ‐ General Fund
36300 - General Fund Transfer - Operating Account - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Unfunded
00000 - Unfunded $ 90,000 - $ - $ - $ 90,000 $ 180,000 $ 501XXXXX_2023_02 Construction Taxilane D Rehabilitation ‐ 3" Asphalt Mill & Overlay Unfunded
00000 - Unfunded $ 620,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 620,000 $ 501XXXXX_2023_03 Planning Study ‐ Airport Master Plan Update ‐ Phase I eALP AGIS Survey Local ‐ General Fund
36300 - General Fund Transfer - Operating Account - $ 13,750 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 13,750 $ Unfunded
00000 - Unfunded $ 150,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 150,000 $ 501XXXXX_2024_01 Replace Gate ‐ Melba Entrance
Unfunded
00000 - Unfunded $ 110,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ 110,000 $
AP ‐ Airport/Aviation Total $ ‐ $ 1,666,010 $ ‐ 200,000 $ ‐ $ $ 90,000 $ 1,956,010 FA ‐ Facilities/Buildings
30160017 Services Center Maintenance and Renovations
Local ‐ General Fund
36300 - General Fund Transfer - Operating Account 116,213 $ 150,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 266,213 $ 36375 - ARPA (264) $ - 80,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 80,000 $ 30160018 Recreation Center Replacement
Local ‐ General Fund
36300 - General Fund Transfer - Operating Account - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Local ‐ Measure P
36309 - Transfer In - Measure P 861,992 $ 55,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 55,861,992 $ 30160028 1740 D Street Renovations
Local ‐ General Fund
36300 - General Fund Transfer - Operating Account 20,405 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 20,405 $ 36304 - Operating Transfer In from CIP - City Fund (301-302-303-304-305) - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 36360 - Operating Transfer In - Rental (219) - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 36370 - Transfer In - L.T. Capital Replacement (310) - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Unfunded
00000 - Unfunded $ - - $ 60,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 60,000 $
30160050 Community Playfields Restroom Project
South Lake Tahoe
Capital Improvement Program
2023 through 2027
FUNDING SOURCE SUMMARY ‐ LOCAL FUNDS
Functional Area: (Multiple Items)

Page 1 of 8 ends

1154
Functional Area Project Name Roll Forward 22/23 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27 Total South Lake Tahoe
Capital Improvement Program
2023 through 2027
FUNDING SOURCE SUMMARY ‐ LOCAL FUNDS
Functional Area: (Multiple Items)
30160050 Local ‐ Measure R
33315 - S.T.A.R. Ballot Measure 15,015 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 15,015 $ 30160067 Senior Center Renovations
Local ‐ General Fund
36280 - Contributions and Donations 7,676 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 7,676 $ 36300 - General Fund Transfer - Operating Account - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 30170020 Miscellaneous Maintenance ‐ Minor Capital
Local ‐ General Fund
36300 - General Fund Transfer - Operating Account 49,440 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 49,440 $ 301XXXXX_2023_03 Repair Fire Suppression Lines at Ice Arena Unfunded
00000 - Unfunded $ 120,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ 120,000 $
301XXXXX_2023_04 Parking Garage Improvements
Local ‐ General Fund
36334 - Parking Garage Fund (520) $ - 750,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 750,000 $ 301XXXXX_2023_05 On‐Call Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing Services Local ‐ General Fund
36300 - General Fund Transfer - Operating Account $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Unfunded
00000 - Unfunded $ 100,000 - $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 400,000 $ 301XXXXX_2023_06 Renovate Locker Rooms/Showers and Public Restrooms ‐ Ice Arena Local ‐ General Fund
36300 - General Fund Transfer - Operating Account $ 200,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ 200,000 $ 301XXXXX_2023_07 Exterior Painting ‐ Stateline Transit Center Local ‐ General Fund
36300 - General Fund Transfer - Operating Account 60,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 60,000 $ 301XXXXX_2023_08 Replace Flooring/Interior Paint ‐ Fire Station 1 Local ‐ General Fund
36300 - General Fund Transfer - Operating Account 60,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 60,000 $ 301XXXXX_2024_01 Replace Roof ‐ Ice Arena
Local ‐ General Fund
36300 - General Fund Transfer - Operating Account $ 1,600,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,600,000 $ 301XXXXX_2024_03 Replace Roof/Mansards ‐ Police Department Local ‐ General Fund
36300 - General Fund Transfer - Operating Account 675,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 675,000 $ 301XXXXX_2024_04 Interior Painting and Coatings ‐ Ice Arena Unfunded
00000 - Unfunded $ 240,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ 240,000 $
301XXXXX_2024_05 Regan Beach Concession Building Safety Repairs Unfunded
00000 - Unfunded $ 40,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ 40,000 $
301XXXXX_2024_06 Replace Overhead Doors ‐ Cinder Barn
Unfunded
00000 - Unfunded $ 100,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ 100,000 $
301XXXXX_2024_07 Replace Roof ‐ Services Center
Unfunded
00000 - Unfunded $ 60,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ 60,000 $

Page 2 of 8 ends

1155
Functional Area Project Name Roll Forward 22/23 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27 Total South Lake Tahoe
Capital Improvement Program
2023 through 2027
FUNDING SOURCE SUMMARY ‐ LOCAL FUNDS
Functional Area: (Multiple Items)
301XXXXX_2024_08 Remodel Airport Info Center into Meeting Room Unfunded
00000 - Unfunded $ 20,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ 20,000 $
301XXXXX_2024_12 Ice Arena Chiller Plant Replacement
Local ‐ General Fund
36300 - General Fund Transfer - Operating Account - $ - $ 1,300,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,300,000 $ 301XXXXX_2025_01 Replace Boilers and Colling Equipment ‐ Stateline Transit Center Local ‐ General Fund
00000 - Unfunded $ - - $ 1,250,000 $ - $ - $ 1,250,000 $ 301XXXXX_2025_02 Replace HVAC and Dehumidification Equipment at Ice Arena Unfunded
00000 - Unfunded $ - - $ 225,000 $ - $ - $ 225,000 $
301XXXXX_2025_03 Replace Roof ‐ Fire Station II
Unfunded
00000 - Unfunded $ - - $ 60,000 $ - $ - $ 60,000 $
301XXXXX_2025_05 Demolition of Existing Recreation Center and Site Restoration Unfunded
00000 - Unfunded $ - - $ - $ 100,000 $ 4,900,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 31070000 Long Term Capital Replacement
Local ‐ General Fund
35310 - Interest/Dividends Revenue - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 36300 - General Fund Transfer - Operating Account - $ 200,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 200,000 $ Unfunded
00000 - Unfunded $ 200,000 - $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 800,000 $ FA ‐ Facilities/Buildings Total $ 1,150,741 $ 56,895,000 $ 4,040,000 $ 1,835,000 $ 400,000 $ 5,200,000 $ 69,520,741 IT ‐ Network/Communications
301XXXXX_2023_20 Broadband Infrastructure Program ‐ Citywide Unfunded
00000 - Unfunded $ 1,200,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,200,000 $ 301XXXXX_2023_21 Fiber Optic Install ‐ Ice Arena
Unfunded
00000 - Unfunded $ 100,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ 100,000 $
301XXXXX_2023_22 Installation of video surveillance equipment at Fire Stations Unfunded
00000 - Unfunded $ 100,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ 100,000 $
IT ‐ Network/Communications Total $ ‐ $ ‐ 1,400,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ $ 1,400,000 PA ‐ Parks/Greenbelts/Grounds
301 ‐ 60068 Community Playfields Project
Local ‐ General Fund
36291 - Special Event Reimbursements 25,719 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 25,719 $ 36300 - General Fund Transfer - Operating Account 2,488 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,488 $ 301 ‐ 60070 56 Acres Master Plan
Unfunded
00000 - Unfunded $ - - $ - $ 250,000 $ 1,100,000 $ 8,000,000 $ 9,350,000 $

Page 3 of 8 ends

1156
Functional Area Project Name Roll Forward 22/23 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27 Total South Lake Tahoe
Capital Improvement Program
2023 through 2027
FUNDING SOURCE SUMMARY ‐ LOCAL FUNDS
Functional Area: (Multiple Items)
301 ‐ 60073 Al Tahoe Cemetery Security Improvements
Local ‐ General Fund
36300 - General Fund Transfer - Operating Account 45,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 45,000 $ Unfunded
00000 - Unfunded $ 75,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ 75,000 $
30160051 Lakeview Commons Site Electrical Improvements
Local ‐ General Fund
36300 - General Fund Transfer - Operating Account 40,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 40,000 $ 301XXXXX_2025_06 Regan Beach Renovations and Upgrade Project Unfunded
00000 - Unfunded $ - - $ 250,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 2,250,000 $ 301XXXXX_2026_02 Champions Plaza Expansion
Unfunded
00000 - Unfunded $ - - $ - $ - $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $
31070000_2023_01 Construct new tent platforms
Local ‐ General Fund
36370 - Transfer In - L.T. Capital Replacement (310) 80,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 80,000 $ PA ‐ Parks/Greenbelts/Grounds Total $ 73,207 $ 120,000 $ 75,000 $ 500,000 $ 2,100,000 $ 9,100,000 $ 11,968,207 PS‐F ‐ Public Safety ‐ Fire
301 ‐ 60019 Fire Station II Replacement
Local ‐ General Fund
36300 - General Fund Transfer - Operating Account $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 36374 - Transfer In from Measure S (102) $ 500,000 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 301 ‐ 60071 Fire Station III Crew Quarters Renovations
Local ‐ General Fund
36300 - General Fund Transfer - Operating Account 156,700 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 156,700 $ 36375 - ARPA (264) $ - 2,100,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 2,100,000 $ Unfunded
00000 - Unfunded $ 1,000,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,000,000 $ 301XXXXX_2023_10 Fire Station 4 ‐ Renovations (Airport Location) Local ‐ General Fund
36300 - General Fund Transfer - Operating Account 200,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 200,000 $ 301XXXXX_2026_05 Fire Station 1 Renovations
Unfunded
00000 - Unfunded $ - - $ - $ 300,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,300,000 $ PS‐F ‐ Public Safety ‐ Fire Total $ 156,700 $ 2,800,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 500,000 $ 800,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 8,256,700 PS‐P ‐ Public Safety ‐ Police
301 ‐ 70021 Safety Communications Project
Local ‐ General Fund
36300 - General Fund Transfer - Operating Account - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

Page 4 of 8 ends

1157
Functional Area Project Name Roll Forward 22/23 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27 Total South Lake Tahoe
Capital Improvement Program
2023 through 2027
FUNDING SOURCE SUMMARY ‐ LOCAL FUNDS
Functional Area: (Multiple Items)
301 ‐ 70021 Local ‐Measure S (102)
36374 - Transfer In from Measure S (102) 1,419,786 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,419,786 $ 36403 - Proceeds from Sale of Notes/Debt - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 301‐60022 Police Department Renovations
Local ‐ General Fund
36300 - General Fund Transfer - Operating Account 75,000 $ 130,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 205,000 $ 36304 - Operating Transfer In from CIP - City Fund (301-302-303-304-305) - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 36307 - Operating Transfer In - Safety Sales Tax - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 30160074 Police Department Community Resource Center
Local ‐ General Fund
36307 - Operating Transfer In - Safety Sales Tax 100,000 $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 200,000 $ PS‐P ‐ Public Safety ‐ Police Total $ 1,594,786 $ ‐ 230,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ $ 1,824,786 ST ‐ Streets/Roads/Walks/Trails
301 ‐ 50005 Streets and Roads Paving and Rehabilitation ‐ Annual Local ‐ General Fund
32113 - Street and Curb Revenues - Public Works - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 34415 - Streets - Paving Mitigation Agreement Revenue 1,883,300 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,883,300 $ 36300 - General Fund Transfer - Operating Account - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 36304 - Operating Transfer In from CIP - City Fund (301-302-303-304-305) 76,629 $ 518,128 $ 518,128 $ 518,128 $ 518,128 $ 518,128 $ 2,667,269 $ Local ‐Measure S (102)
36374 - Transfer In from Measure S (102) 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 15,000,000 $ 301 ‐ 50024 Pioneer Trail Pedestrian Improvements ‐Phase II Local ‐ General Fund
36300 - General Fund Transfer - Operating Account - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Unfunded
00000 - Unfunded $ 3,600,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,600,000 $ 301 ‐ 50026 Lake Tahoe Blvd Bike and Pedestrian Trail
Local ‐ General Fund
36300 - General Fund Transfer - Operating Account - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 36304 - Operating Transfer In from CIP - City Fund (301-302-303-304-305) - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 301 ‐ 50027 Al Tahoe Mobility Enhancements Project
Local ‐ Measure R
33315 - S.T.A.R. Ballot Measure $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 301 ‐ 50036 Bellamy Way Parking Improvements
Local ‐ General Fund
36352 - Transfer In from Parking Authority (510) 25,343 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 25,343 $ 301 ‐ 50037 Bicycle and Pedestrian Trail ‐ Bijou Park Connector Local ‐ General Fund
36300 - General Fund Transfer - Operating Account - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Unfunded
00000 - Unfunded $ - 250,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 250,000 $

Page 5 of 8 ends

1158
Functional Area Project Name Roll Forward 22/23 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27 Total South Lake Tahoe
Capital Improvement Program
2023 through 2027
FUNDING SOURCE SUMMARY ‐ LOCAL FUNDS
Functional Area: (Multiple Items)
301 ‐ 50038 Pioneer Trail Safety Improvement Project ‐ HSIP Local ‐ General Fund
36300 - General Fund Transfer - Operating Account 5,500 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 5,500 $ 301 ‐ 50040 Install Video Detection Signal Loops at Pioneer Trail Traffic Signals Local ‐ General Fund
36300 - General Fund Transfer - Operating Account 80,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 80,000 $ 30150041 Dennis Machida Memorial Bike Way Phase 1C
Unfunded
00000 - Unfunded $ 750,000 - $ 600,000 $ 6,500,000 $ 1,750,000 $ 9,600,000 $ 30150042 Palmyra Class 1 Bike Trail Connector
Local ‐ General Fund
36300 - General Fund Transfer - Operating Account 100,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 100,000 $ Local ‐ Measure S
33315 - S.T.A.R. Ballot Measure 26,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 26,000 $ Unfunded
00000 - Unfunded $ 100,000 - $ 775,000 $ - $ - $ 875,000 $ 30150043 Citywide Traffic Safety, Traffic Calming, ADA, and Flooding Mitigation Projects Local ‐ General Fund
36300 - General Fund Transfer - Operating Account 50,000 $ 150,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 200,000 $ Unfunded
00000 - Unfunded $ 150,000 - $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 600,000 $ 30150044 Pedestrian Lighting Retrofit ‐ Dark Sky LED
Local ‐ General Fund
36300 - General Fund Transfer - Operating Account 165,460 $ 75,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 240,460 $ Unfunded
00000 - Unfunded $ 75,000 - $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 300,000 $ 301XXXXX_2023_09 Stateline Avenue Complete Streets Project Local ‐ Measure S
36374 - Transfer In from Measure S (102) $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Unfunded
00000 - Unfunded $ 700,000 100,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 2,700,000 $ 1,700,000 $ 6,200,000 $ 301XXXXX_2023_11 Citywide Traffic Collision Analysis and Traffic Control Inventory Local ‐ General Fund
36300 - General Fund Transfer - Operating Account $ 50,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ 50,000 $ 301XXXXX_2024_02 Johnson Boulevard Streetscape Project
Unfunded
00000 - Unfunded $ - - $ 600,000 $ 3,700,000 $ 2,200,000 $ 6,500,000 $ 301XXXXX_2024_11 South Wye Mobility and Transit Hub
Unfunded
00000 - Unfunded $ 100,000 - $ 1,750,000 $ 6,750,000 $ 12,000,000 $ 20,600,000 $

Page 6 of 8 ends

1159
Functional Area Project Name Roll Forward 22/23 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27 Total South Lake Tahoe
Capital Improvement Program
2023 through 2027
FUNDING SOURCE SUMMARY ‐ LOCAL FUNDS
Functional Area: (Multiple Items)
301XXXXX_2026_06 Tahoe Keys Blvd Complete Streets Project Unfunded
00000 - Unfunded $ - - $ 300,000 $ 800,000 $ 4,000,000 $ 5,100,000 $ 301XXXXX_2027_01 Spruce and Blackwood Streets Complete Streets Projects Unfunded
00000 - Unfunded $ - - $ - $ 700,000 $ 300,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 301XXXXX_2028_02 Third Street Complete Streets Project
Unfunded
00000 - Unfunded $ - - $ - $ - $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $
ST ‐ Streets/Roads/Walks/Trails Total $ 4,812,232 $ 3,693,128 $ 8,543,128 $ 8,268,128 $ 24,393,128 $ 25,693,128 $ 75,402,872 SUS ‐ Sustainability
301XXXXX_13 City Facility Energy Improvements ‐ Sustainability Local ‐ General Fund
(blank) $ - 300,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 300,000 $
301XXXXX_2003_15 SEED Solar Project
Unfunded
00000 - Unfunded $ 1,500,000 1,500,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 3,000,000 $ 301XXXXX_2023_14 AHSC City Corp Yard Photovoltaic Project Unfunded
00000 - Unfunded $ 6,000,000 - $ 3,000,000 $ - $ - $ 9,000,000 $ 301XXXXX_2023_15 Public Use EV Charging Station Installation Unfunded
00000 - Unfunded $ 500,000 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 301XXXXX_2023_16 Purchase EV Patrol Vehicles (4) for Police Department Unfunded
00000 - Unfunded $ 300,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ 300,000 $
301XXXXX_2023_17 On‐Call Electrical Engineering Services ‐ Sustainability Unfunded
00000 - Unfunded $ 150,000 - $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ - $ 450,000 $ 301XXXXX_2023_18 Installation of telemetry based mechanical controls Unfunded
00000 - Unfunded $ 120,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ 120,000 $
301XXXXX_2023_19 Purchase and Installation of eight (8) EV Charging Stations at Police Department Local ‐ General Fund
36300 - General Fund Transfer - Operating Account 200,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 200,000 $ 301XXXXX_2023‐12 Purchase Electric Vehicles ‐ Fleet Replacement Local ‐ General Fund
(blank) $ - 226,400 $ - $ - $ - $ 226,400 $
Unfunded
00000 - Unfunded $ 500,000 - $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 2,000,000 $ SUS ‐ Sustainability Total $ 2,726,400 $ 9,070,000 $ 4,150,000 $ 1,150,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 18,096,400

Page 7 of 8 ends

1160
Functional Area Project Name Roll Forward 22/23 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27 Total South Lake Tahoe
Capital Improvement Program
2023 through 2027
FUNDING SOURCE SUMMARY ‐ LOCAL FUNDS
Functional Area: (Multiple Items)SW ‐ Storm Water/NPDES/MS4 301 ‐ 40030 Tahoe Valley Area Plan and ECP
Local ‐ General Fund
33312 - TRPA - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Water Quality Mitigation Funds - Local 200,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 200,000 $ 36300 - General Fund Transfer - Operating Account 850,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 850,000 $ 301 ‐ 40036 Drainage Master Plan
Local ‐ General Fund
36300 - General Fund Transfer - Operating Account 35,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 35,000 $ 301 ‐ 40037 Storm Water Management Plan
Local ‐ General Fund
36284 - Misc Reimb $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
36300 - General Fund Transfer - Operating Account 54,378 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 54,378 $ 301 ‐ 40049 SW Drainage Pipe Replacement(s)
Local ‐ General Fund
36300 - General Fund Transfer - Operating Account 319,327 $ 700,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,019,327 $ 36332 - Transfer In from Vehicle Replacement Fund (210) - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Local ‐Measure S (102)
36375 - ARPA (264) $ - 200,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 200,000 $
Unfunded
00000 - Unfunded $ 900,000 - $ 900,000 $ 900,000 $ 900,000 $ 3,600,000 $ 301 ‐ 40050 Bijou Park Water Quality/SEZ Restoration Project Local ‐ General Fund
36300 - General Fund Transfer - Operating Account 15,634 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 15,634 $ 301 ‐ 40052 Ruby Way Erosion Control Project
Local ‐ General Fund
36300 - General Fund Transfer - Operating Account 21,592 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 21,592 $ Unfunded
(blank) $ 2,000,000 2,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 4,000,000 $ 301 ‐ 40053 James & Eloise Drainage Pipe Replacement
Local ‐ General Fund
36300 - General Fund Transfer - Operating Account 445,308 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 445,308 $ 301‐ 40040 Drainage Improvements ‐ Micro Areas ‐ City Wide Local ‐ General Fund
36300 - General Fund Transfer - Operating Account 37,150 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 37,150 $ SW ‐ Storm Water/NPDES/MS4 Total $ 1,128,389 $ 3,750,000 $ 2,900,000 $ 900,000 $ 900,000 $ 900,000 $ 10,478,389 VE ‐ Vehicles/Equipment
210 Purchase of new Vehicles and Equipment
Local ‐ General Fund
36332 - Transfer In from Vehicle Replacement Fund (210) - $ 225,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 225,000 $ Local ‐Measure S (102)
36374 - Transfer In from Measure S (102) - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Unfunded
00000 - Unfunded $ 1,200,000 1,107,500 $ 1,200,000 $ 1,200,000 $ 1,200,000 $ 5,907,500 $ VE ‐ Vehicles/Equipment Total $ ‐ $ 1,332,500 $ 1,200,000 $ 1,200,000 $ 1,200,000 $ 1,200,000 $ 6,132,500 Total $ 8,916,055 $ 73,213,038 $ 28,928,128 $ 17,353,128 $ 30,943,128 $ 45,683,128 $ 205,036,605

Page 8 of 8 ends

1161
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Joe Irvin, City Manager
Meeting Date: June 21, 2022
Agenda Item #: 19
Agenda Item: Agenda Planning Calendar
Executive Summary:

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: A Councilmember may request that an item be placed on a future agenda. Upon the support of one (1) additional Council Member, direction shall be given to the City Manager to calendar the item for a convenient future agenda, but no sooner than the second meeting after the request was made, and/or modify the Agenda Planning Calendar as desired.

Responsible Staff Member: Joseph Irvin, City Manager
Responsible Staff Member:

Reviewed and Approved By:

Attachments:

APC - 06 16 2022.pdf
1162
2022 Agenda Planning Calendar 06/16/2022
Department Agenda Item Agenda Section
Aug. 9, 9 a.m. City Attny Cannabis Tax Ordinance (second reading) Consent City Clerk City Employee Recognition CER
City Manager ARPA Project Round 2 Discussion UB
Civic Spark Report NB
TRPA Presentation on Regional Planning and VMT Plan Presentation Finance Approval of Bond Financing Docs for the Rec Center Construction Financing NB Revised Fiscal Year 2020-2021 and Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Appropriation Limits Consent Financial Policy Update Consent
Dev Services "Lease to Locals" Program Incentive UB
Public Art Review Policy NB
Parks & Rec ART League Property Lease Consent
Park Foundation MOU NB
Pub Works Tahoe Valley Phase I Improvements Award Consent Grant Funding for the Tahoe Valley Stormwater & Greenbelt Project Consent Facility Assessment Award Consent
State Water Resources Control Board Proposition 1 Grant Funding ($6,922,904) Consent 1163
2022 Agenda Planning Calendar 06/16/2022
California Tahoe Conservancy Proposition 1 Grant Funding ($550,000) Consent Award Contract to Herback for Tahoe Valley & Greenbelt Project ($6,688,511) Consent Johnson Blvd Underground Utility District Boundary NB
Professional Services Agreement for Barton Ave & 2nd Street Drainage Project Consent Cost Sharing Agreement with Tahoe Meadows for LED Stop Signs Consent Aug. 23, 9 a.m. Budget Workshop
Pub Works Formal CIP Presentation for Adoption
Title VI Plan Adoption
Sept. 6, 9 a.m. City Manager TRPA Regional Funding Plan Dev Services PLHA Moderate Income Homebuyer Administration PSA Pub Works EIP and Regional Project Priority Presentation Sept. 20, 5:30 p.mPub Works Rec Center Award - Phase II Hazardous Materials Remediation Campground Store and Outbuildings Airport Rate Study Presentation NB
Oct. 4, 9 a.m. City Clerk Conflict of Interest Code Update Ordinance Increasing City Council Compensation (First Reading) City Manager SW Gas Prestentation Renewable Energy Goals 1164
2022 Agenda Planning Calendar 06/16/2022
Dev Services California Building Code - Local Code Adoption Public Works Airport Rate Study Approval UB
Nov. 1, 9 a.m. City Clerk Ordinance Increasing City Council Compensation (Second Reading) Resolution Increasing City Treasurer Compensation
Nov. 15, 5:30 p.m.

Dec.13, 9 a.m. City Clerk Resolution Certification of Election Results City Council Re-Organization
Oath of Office
2023 Meeting Schedule
City Council Assignments to Boards and Commissions Discussion League - New Mayors and Council Members Attendance
City Employee Recognitions
City Attorney Parking Garage License Agreement with Verizon City Attny/PW Undergrounding Utilities
Amendments to Small Cell Policy
Liberty Utilities Franchise Agreement
Unscheduled/Pending
1165
2022 Agenda Planning Calendar 06/16/2022
City Clerk Records Management Policy (Updated)
Policy - Use of Personal Devices for City Business
City Manager Juvenile Treatment Center Discussion
Potential new City slogan
Customer satisfaction survey(s)
Dev Services Inclusionary housing ordinance
Plan Area Statement Update for Tourist Accommodation Uses Tourist Core Area Plan Amendment: 3828 Montreal Rd
RFP for consulting firms for Bijou / Al Tahoe Area Plan and Bijou Parks Master Plan Plan Area Statement 111 amendment
Single Room Occupancy Program Amendments
Outside Eating Code Review (coverage, seating, parking etc) Fire Weed abatement/nusance Program - Defensable Space
Fire Marshal
Parks & Rec
Public Works Award Engineering and Construction Contract South Hangar Taxi Lane Rehab Award Contract PD - Community Recource Center Renovations 1166
2022 Agenda Planning Calendar 06/16/2022
SEED Solar Photovoltaic Project PPA
Award - James and Eloise Drainage Improvement Project Phase 1 Airport Deferred Maintenance Plan
Recreation Bijou Park Master Plan
Bijou Golf Course "Rock the Lake" Event and Review
1167
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Joe Irvin, City Manager
Meeting Date: June 21, 2022
Agenda Item #: 20
Agenda Item: Transit Visioning Workshop Facilitated by Representatives of Via Mobility, LLC Executive Summary: Representatives from Via Mobility, LLC will facilitate a workshop to understand the City Council's vision and goals for transit and mobility services in South Lake Tahoe and connectivity to the region.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: City Council will participate in a facilitated Transit Visioning Workshop.

Responsible Staff Member: Lindsey Baker, Assistant to the City Manager/Public Information Officer Responsible Staff Member: Lindsey Baker, Assistant to the City Manager/Public Information Officer (530) 542-6093
Reviewed and Approved By:

Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance
Heather Stroud, City Attorney
Attachments:
01-Staff Report - Transit Visioning Workshop.docx
02-Exhibit 1 City of South Lake Tahoe Existing Conditions and Transit Gaps Report_DRAFT.pdf 1168
Council Agenda Report- June 21, 2022 Page 1 of 2
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: June 21, 2022
Title: Transit Visioning Workshop Facilitated by Representatives of Via Mobility, LLC Location: Citywide
Responsible Staff Member: Lindsey Baker, Assistant to the City Manager/Public Information Officer (530) 542-6093
Background: City Council authorized an agreement with Via Mobility on February 1 to conduct a comprehensive analysis of mobility services on the South Shore. As part of the analysis, representatives from Via Mobility will facilitate a workshop with the City Council to fully assess the governing body’s vision for mobility in South Lake Tahoe and connectivity to the surrounding region. This will complete Task 3.3 of 5, as noted below.

In addition to seeking Council’s vision, the workshop discussion will include a presentation by Via on the Analysis of Current Service and Identification of Service Gaps report (Exhibit 1), as well as an overview of the stakeholder focus group meetings, and the transit peer review. Following the City Council visioning exercise, Via will take the inputs from Tasks 2 and 3 to develop recommendations to improve the transportation network (Tasks 4 and 5), which will comprise the final report and deliverable from Via.

Via’s proposal includes five tasks to achieve the SOW objectives:

Task 1: Project Management

1.1: Kickoff Meeting

1.2: Establish Goals and Objectives

1.3: Quality Assurance
Task 2: Assessment of TTD’s Current Service and Existing Service Gaps

2.1: Demographic Analysis

2.2: Analysis of Current Service and Identification of Service Gaps Task 3: Facilitate the City Council’s Vision for Transit

3.1: Peer Review and Industry Best Practices

3.2: Focus Groups with Regional Stakeholders

3.3: City Council Workshop
Task 4: Recommendations to Improve the Transportation Network

4.1: Fixed-Route Service Design

4.2: Microtransit Service Design and Simulations

4.3: Alternative Service Delivery Models for ADA Paratransit

4.4: Fleet Electrification
Task 5: Feasibility of the City Assuming Transit Services

5.1: Implementation Roadmap

5.2: Funding
1169
Council Agenda Report- June 21, 2022 Page 2 of 2
Financial Implications: The fiscal year 2021-2022 budget contains $50,000 in appropriations for the transit analysis within the Non-Departmental budget account 100-01951-44032 Contributions / Sponsorships.

Environmental Considerations: The proposed transit analysis is statutorily exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines section 15262 (Feasibility and Planning Studies) because it involves possible future actions which the City has not approved, adopted, or funded.

Policy Implications: This transit study advances Goal 1.4 (Transportation) in the 2021-2026 Strategic Plan, by addressing Action Item 5: Evaluate the feasibility with regional partners to establish a new transit service delivery model via revised agreement, new agency, or Joint Powers Authority to better serve South Lake Tahoe.
1170
DRAFT
Existing Conditions and Transit Gaps Report
City of South Lake Tahoe
Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current
Mobility Services in the South Shore
1171
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 3

1. Market Analysis 6

1.1. Study Area Overview 6

1.2. Trip Generators 7

1.3. Demographics 10

1.4 Transit propensity analysis 18

2. System Analysis 20

2.1. Fixed Route Review 20

2.2. Paratransit 27

2.3. Microtransit 29

3. Rider Experience 31

3.1. Convenience 31

3.2. Connectivity and Travel Time 32

3.3. Walkability 34

3.4. Ease of use 35

3.5. Accessibility 35

3.6. Passenger Facilities 35

3.7. Perception 37

3.8. Affordability 37
4 Fixed-Asset Management 37
Existing Conditions and Transit Gaps Report, City of South Lake Tahoe - 2 1172
Executive Summary
The City of South Lake Tahoe has a tourist-based economy that experiences substantial fluctuations in population and activity during weekends and seasonal peaks. The City is looking to address the transportation needs of this community to ensure there is reliable and affordable transit service for workers, residents, and visitors. This report details the existing conditions and transit gaps in South Lake Tahoe, and will serve as a reference document to inform the development of recommendations for the Comprehensive Transit Analysis.

It is divided into four sections. Section 1: Market Analysis explores the spatial distribution of factors that influence current and future transit demand. Section 2: System Analysis provides a review of the current fixed-routes service, past and future microtransit service, and paratransit service. Section 3: Rider Experience examines critical aspects of the transit system, such as convenience, connectivity, walkability, and ease of use. Section 4: Fixed Asset Management assesses TTD’s current and planned fleetyards, as well as steps taken to electrify the bus fleet.

This report looks at several indicators when assessing the existing transportation network. The following table lists evaluation criteria and summarizes our key findings for each criterion.

Evaluation Criteria Key Findings
Density—does the system connect
areas of adequate density?
Fixed-route service runs through most areas of population and job density, yet there are higher density areas that the service does not cover, such as Tallac Village as well as parts of Tahoe Sierra and Al Tahoe.

Connectivity—does the current
service connect the workforce to
employment centers, low-income
housing, entertainment centers,
etc?
Less than 50% of the population can access key points of interest (like casinos, shopping centers, and low-income housing) within 30 minutes via public transit, while few points of interest are accessible within 60 minutes by all South Lake Tahoe residents.

Walkability—does the infrastructure
within a quarter mile of bus stations
and bus stops provide easy and
walkable access for riders?
There is adequate pedestrian infrastructure along Route 50, which runs along a high-traffic corridor. However, Route 55 does not have adequate infrastructure, as it runs along arterial roads.

Convenience—is the system
convenient for riders?
Bus routes are not competitive with driving, due to
relatively high transit travel times and reliability issues on Route 50. Further, stop amenities are lacking along
significant parts of Route 55. Transit app does, however, provide real-time updates on routes, potentially alleviating unexpected waits at the bus stop.

Existing Conditions and Transit Gaps Report, City of South Lake Tahoe - 3 1173
Affordability—is the system
affordable to both the
transit-reliant and choice riders?
The system has been fare-free since March 2020 and will continue to be free for the foreseeable future.

Frequency—does the system
provide adequate ride frequency to
promote ridership?
Route 50 has headways of 34 minutes, which is relatively moderate frequency, while route 55 has headways of 60
minutes, which would be considered relatively low
frequency. For less dense areas, a 34 minute headway is not abnormal; however, it may not be considered frequent by riders. Where Routes 50 and 55 overlap between US
50/Al Tahoe Blvd (US Bank) and the South Y Transit Center, the effective frequency is, on average, about 22 minutes.

However, Route 55 has more deviations than Route 50, so the increased travel time may offset the reduction in wait time if a rider were to board Route 55 in this corridor, especially if traveling to the Stateline area.

Reliability—Does the system run on
time and make reliable connections
with transfers to TTD or other
mobility services?
On-time performance is 73.4% for Route 50 and 90.1% for Route 55.1 While riders can easily track their buses to plan their trip, on-time performance is low for Route 50, which serves more than 50% of TTD’s passenger trips.

Travel Time—does the system get
riders where they want to go in an
efficient time frame?
Given the lower frequency of the system and its moderate on-time performance, travel times can be long, making it noncompetitive with driving.

Ease of use—Are resources available
to successfully and efficiently plan
trips?
Passengers can plan out their trip on Google Maps or the Transit app, which provides real-time bus information.

Accessibility—do all members of the
public have equitable access to the
system?
Those who cannot otherwise use the fixed-route service
can use the paratransit service, which has the same hours as fixed-route service and operates within a one-mile
radius of fixed routes. Further, the planned microtransit service may also increase accessibility.

Passenger Facilities—does TTD
provide adequate shelters, benches
and gathering places for current
and future stops?
Most bus stops have at least a sign and a boarding pad.

Most of the bus stops with both benches and shelters can be found on the main US 50 corridor, while those with
inadequate passenger facilities can be found on the 55, and on arterial roads.

Fixed-Asset Management—do the
current fleet yards and real estate
meet current needs?
TTD has expressed that the current fleet yard, which is owned by the City and leased to TTD, is over capacity. TTD is currently exploring a new facility in Zephyr Cove.
1 TTD Board Agenda Packet, January 31, 2020, pg. 29.

Existing Conditions and Transit Gaps Report, City of South Lake Tahoe - 4 1174
Perception—Does TTD provide an
overall positive riding experience
for its customers?
Survey respondents in the TTD Short-Range Transit Plan
Customer Satisfaction Survey have generally positive views of their experience on TTD. The top three amenities that passengers would like to see improved are increased
frequency, better on-time performance, and automated
vehicle location. However, perception of the service among non-riders remains to be analyzed.

Service coverage—is the system
providing adequate transit services
inclusive of high-density areas,
socio-economic diversity, and Title
VI requirements?
Fixed-route service runs through most areas of population and job density, yet there are high-density areas that the service does not cover, including Tallac Village, Tahoe Sierra, Al Tahoe, and south Lake Tahoe near the airport.

These communities have high concentrations of people of color, low-income residents, and car-free households.

Table 1. Analysis of evaluation criteria
Existing Conditions and Transit Gaps Report, City of South Lake Tahoe - 5 1175

1. Market Analysis
This section explores the spatial distribution of factors that influence current and future transit demand in South Lake Tahoe. It includes a spatial analysis of trip generators (points of interest as well as population and job densities), demographic groups that are more likely to use transit, as well as a transit propensity index, which combines demographic characteristics into a composite score that helps to identify parts of the city with the highest propensity for transit use.

Based on the market analysis, we see that there is a potential market for transit service in Tahoe Sierra, Al Tahoe, Tallac Village, parts of Tahoe Keys and Tahoe Valley. These areas have high population and job densities (relative to the overall region) and have a higher propensity to use transit.

1.1. Study Area Overview
The City of South Lake Tahoe is a resort town on Lake Tahoe, part of the Lake Tahoe Region CA-NV urbanized area. It is served by three bus routes: the 22, which starts in Gardnerville, NV and ends at the Stateline Transit Center, and the 50 and 55, which run through the city from Tahoe Valley to Stateline Transit Center.

Figure 1. Map of study area and its fixed routes.

Existing Conditions and Transit Gaps Report, City of South Lake Tahoe - 6 1176

1.2. Trip Generators

1.2.1. Area POIs
Figure 2. Area POI’s with a 0.25-mile buffer around transit network Most POIs within South Lake Tahoe are located on Routes 50 and 55, in particular along the main corridor of Lake Tahoe Boulevard. These include schools, affordable housing complexes, shopping centers, and healthcare facilities. However, several POIs and portions of neighborhoods fall outside the quarter-mile radius, including Heavenly Mountain Resort, Tahoe Seasons Resort, City Hall, Lake Tahoe Airport, Al Tahoe, Central Tahoe, and Tallac Village.

Existing Conditions and Transit Gaps Report, City of South Lake Tahoe - 7 1177

1.2.2. Population density
The official population of the City of South Lake Tahoe is 22,520. This figure tends to fluctuate during peak seasons, where the population could increase to more than 100,000.2 The below figure shows population density in the South Lake Tahoe, CA–NV Urbanized Area. Population is concentrated in Tahoe Valley, Al Tahoe, Bijou Park, and near the Stateline, NV border. These communities are predominantly residential, while Stateline is largely a commercial area with casinos and entertainment centers.

Figure 3. Population density in the urbanized area
2 RFP - City of South Lake Tahoe Comprehensive Transit Analysis.

Existing Conditions and Transit Gaps Report, City of South Lake Tahoe - 8 1178

1.2.3. Job density
Employment density is an indicator of where people may travel to for work on a regular basis. The highest concentrations of jobs in South Lake Tahoe are in the Stateline and Tahoe Valley areas. This is likely driven by the multiple casinos near the Nevada-California border and the South Y Shopping Center in Tahoe Valley.

Figure 4. Jobs per square mile by TAZ.

Existing Conditions and Transit Gaps Report, City of South Lake Tahoe - 9 1179

1.3. Demographics

1.3.1. Youth population
Youth are often frequent users of public transit as many are students and do not have access to a private vehicle or may not have their driver’s license. The youth population in South Lake Tahoe is most concentrated in the Bijou Park area, central South Lake Tahoe, and parts of Tahoe Valley.

Figure 5. Youth population density
Existing Conditions and Transit Gaps Report, City of South Lake Tahoe - 10 1180

1.3.2. Senior population density
Older adults have a higher tendency to rely on public transit for many reasons, including lower incomes and lower rates of vehicle ownership and usage. Senior population is relatively dispersed across South Lake Tahoe, with a higher concentration in Tahoe Valley and central South Lake Tahoe.

Figure 6. Senior population density
Existing Conditions and Transit Gaps Report, City of South Lake Tahoe - 11 1181

1.3.3. Median household income
Those with lower incomes tend to rely more on public transit due to its affordability and the high costs of owning and maintaining a vehicle. Median household income tends to be higher in the periphery of South Lake Tahoe, while lower median incomes are found in areas around Al Tahoe, Bijou Park and Stateline.

Figure 7. Median household income
Existing Conditions and Transit Gaps Report, City of South Lake Tahoe - 12 1182

1.3.4. Residents living in poverty
Most of the populated areas of South Lake Tahoe have some poverty density. The highest concentrations of residents living in poverty are in Bijou Park, parts of central South Lake Tahoe, and Tahoe Valley.

Figure 8. Population of people living in poverty
Existing Conditions and Transit Gaps Report, City of South Lake Tahoe - 13 1183

1.3.5. Minority population
Nonwhite and Hispanic/Latino communities may have a higher tendency to use public transit, as they often have lower incomes and rates of vehicle ownership than their white counterparts. In some instances, communities of color have historically faced lower rates of access to public transit. 37% of the population of the South Lake Tahoe urbanized area identifies as non-White or of Hispanic/Latino origin—significantly less than the California average. The distribution of residents of color reflects the residential distribution at-large, with a concentration in the Bijou Park area.

Figure 9. Minority population
Existing Conditions and Transit Gaps Report, City of South Lake Tahoe - 14 1184

1.3.6. People living with a disability
Many people with disabilities cannot drive themselves or afford a private vehicle and are more likely to rely on alternative forms of transportation, including public transit. Residents living with disabilities are also relatively dispersed throughout the region, with a higher concentration living in Tahoe Sierra.

Figure 10. People living with a disability
Existing Conditions and Transit Gaps Report, City of South Lake Tahoe - 15 1185

1.3.7. Car-free households
Households without access to a private vehicle are often reliant on public transit at higher rates than the general public. If public transit is not available, these households may rely on friends/family to drive them or have to take more expensive taxis or TNCs. If neither of these options are available, they may be unable to travel at all. South Lake Tahoe has concentrations of car-free households in Bijou Park, parts of central South Lake Tahoe, and Tahoe Valley.

Figure 11. Car-free households.

Existing Conditions and Transit Gaps Report, City of South Lake Tahoe - 16 1186

1.3.8. Public transit commuters
Those who take public transit to work are more likely to take public transit for other purposes, such as recreation. There is a high concentration of workers who take public transit to work in the Al Tahoe regions as well as parts of Bijou Park.

Figure 12. Public transit commuters.

Existing Conditions and Transit Gaps Report, City of South Lake Tahoe - 17 1187

1.4 Transit propensity analysis
Transit propensity, at its core, is defined as the likelihood of using public transit. A transit propensity analysis takes into account the local demographic factors of groups likely to take transit in a given study area (e.g. race, zero-vehicle households, income, etc), taken from the 2020 ACS data, in each census block group and compares it to the citywide average. A score of 1.0 means the block group has the same transit propensity as the citywide percentage of people who take transit, 3.2%. The below map shows that those living in Tahoe Valley, Tahoe Sierra, Bijou Park, and the Stateline border are more likely than the citywide average to take public transit. This distribution roughly corresponds to the general population density as well as the distribution of youth, residents living in poverty, and the minority population.

Figure 13. Transit Propensity Index by Census Block Group Existing Conditions and Transit Gaps Report, City of South Lake Tahoe - 18 1188
While some census block groups have a higher transit propensity index than others, this analysis does not take into account the population density of each block group. Some areas may have a high transit propensity index but a lower population density, or vice versa. To get a more accurate picture of which areas would be more inclined to use transit, we weighed the population density of each block group according to the transit propensity of residents, based on their demographics. The results mirror job and population densities, with higher propensity for residents in Tahoe Valley, Tahoe Sierra, Bijou Park and Al Tahoe (which has the highest percentage of people who take public transit to work.) As the map below and the next section will show, some parts of these areas are not adequately covered by fixed-route service.

Figure 14. Weighted population density
Existing Conditions and Transit Gaps Report, City of South Lake Tahoe - 19 1189

2. System Analysis

2.1. Fixed Route Review
The City of South Lake Tahoe is currently served by three routes:
● Route 22 (South Shore Express & Lake Express Daily) - between Gardnerville, NV and Stateline Transit Center
● Route 50 (South Shore Daily) - between South Y Transit Center and Stateline Transit Center along US 50
● Route 55 (Neighborhood Connection) - between Kingsbury Transit Center and South Y Transit Center, through arterial roads and parts of US 50 Tahoe Transportation District also operates other routes, which will not be a focus of this study.

These are Route 19X, which runs between Stateline Transit Center and Carson City, as well as Route 28, a seasonal route that runs between Incline Village and Sand Harbor Lake Tahoe Nevada State Park.

Figure 15. Map of routes serving the City of South Lake Tahoe, with 0.25-mile buffer and points of interest.

Existing Conditions and Transit Gaps Report, City of South Lake Tahoe - 20 1190
There are several neighborhoods that are not well covered by public transit, including parts of Al Tahoe, Tahoe Keys, Tallac Village, and Tahoe Sierra. These neighborhoods have significant population areas that are more than a quarter mile from a bus stop, as shown in the map below.

Figure 16. 0.25-mile walkshed around fixed route transit overlaid with population density.

Existing Conditions and Transit Gaps Report, City of South Lake Tahoe - 21 1191

2.1.1. Ridership Summary
Local South Lake Tahoe Routes 50 and 55 served approximately 88% of all TTD fixed-route passenger trips in the most recent month of available data. Routes 50 and 55 are the most productive routes in terms of utilization (passengers per vehicle revenue hour) while the commuter routes are less productive given they are serving longer distance trips and lower density areas.

Route
Ridership
(March 2022)
Utilization
(March 2022)
Percent of
Total
19 973 3.8 4%
22 1,012 3.8 4%
233 889 4.9 4%
50 13,866 22.8 56%
55 8,032 10.9 32%
Total 24,772
Table 2. TTD routes by ridership, utilization, and percent of total ridership, provided by TTD. 3 Route 23 is no longer in service and appears to have been interlined with Route 22.

Existing Conditions and Transit Gaps Report, City of South Lake Tahoe - 22 1192

2.1.2. Service Hours and Frequency
TTD has varying levels of service per route. Route 50, which connects South Y Center to the Stateline area with fewer deviations than Route 55, has relatively moderate frequency for a lower density system. However, Route 55 has a comparatively lower frequency, which may dissuade potential ridership. The commuter Route 22 also has a lower frequency, which is usual for long distance routes. The span of service also varies by route, with the most limited hours on Route 55, which may prevent access for workers who have evening commutes.

There are a few segments where routes 50 and 55 overlap, specifically between US 50/Al Tahoe Blvd (US Bank) and the South Y Transit Center. At any given stop between these two routes, the effective frequency, on average, is about 22 minutes. However, this can vary significantly depending on how the timetables align at a given time of day.

Route Service Span Frequency
22 5:50am - 8:00am 65 mins
9:30am - 4:30pm 60 min
4:30pm - 6:30pm 65 min
50 6:30am - 7:40pm 34 min
55 6:00am - 5:00 pm 60 min
Table 3. Frequency for routes 22, 50 and 55.

Existing Conditions and Transit Gaps Report, City of South Lake Tahoe - 23 1193

2.1.3. Transit vs Driving
While both routes 50 and 55 carry the majority of riders in the region, they still remain relatively noncompetitive with driving, with Route 55 being the least competitive. The map below shows how, from central South Lake Tahoe, there is a relatively small area accessible within 30 minutes by transit, while the whole urbanized area is accessible within 30 minutes by car.

Figure 17. Compares travel time between car and transit for sample placement along Route 50.

Existing Conditions and Transit Gaps Report, City of South Lake Tahoe - 24 1194

2.1.4. Monthly Ridership
The following chart shows total monthly ridership for each route from July 2019 to March 2022. The peaks correspond to the summer and winter seasons which see a substantial uptick in tourists and seasonal residents. Route 50 serves a consistently higher number of passengers than Route 55, likely due to its higher frequency. Aside from the obvious dip in March 2020 due to the pandemic, there was another pandemic-level dip in ridership on all routes in September 2021, most likely due to the Caldor Fire, which caused closures on major roads and evacuation orders for South Lake Tahoe residents in early September.

Figure 18. Ridership by month provided by TTD.

Existing Conditions and Transit Gaps Report, City of South Lake Tahoe - 25 1195

2.1.5. Vehicle Revenue Hours
Revenue hours have stayed fairly consistent leading up to, during, and right after the pandemic. The large dip in September 2021 is most likely due to the Caldor Fire, during which TTD reduced service to provide evacuation services for the county. The dip in February 2022 reflects the operator shortage, which also reduced frequency of service.

Figure 19. Revenue hours by month provided by TTD.

Existing Conditions and Transit Gaps Report, City of South Lake Tahoe - 26 1196

2.2. Paratransit
TTD currently operates a paratransit service in which users can request a paratransit ride within a one-mile radius of bus routes. Individuals with disabilities who cannot otherwise use the fixed-route system are eligible for this service.

The service hours are the same as the fixed-route hours. Reservations can be made between 6:00 am and 8:00 pm daily. Next day reservations must be made by 8:00 pm. Same-day reservations are accommodated when possible, but there are no guarantees.

Figure 20. Map showing Tahoe Transportation District paratransit buffer zone.

Existing Conditions and Transit Gaps Report, City of South Lake Tahoe - 27 1197

2.2.1. Paratransit Travel Patterns
TTD’s paratransit service has relatively low trip-volume, usually serving about 30-40 trips per weekday and no more than about 3-4 trips per hour.4
Paratransit riders utilize the demand-response service to access all areas of South Lake Tahoe, as well as nearby areas like Meyers and Zephyr Cove. As the origin-destination map below shows, travel patterns include a significant number of longer trips to/from the west and east sides of the City. Key POIs include the Stateline area, Sierra Garden Apartments, Barton Memorial Hospital, Sky Forest Acres Apartments, Grocery Outlet, Safeway (South Lake Tahoe), and Safeway (Zephyr Cove).

Figure 21. Two week sample of ADA origin-destination pairs, provided by TTD. 4 Trips data provided by TTD.

Existing Conditions and Transit Gaps Report, City of South Lake Tahoe - 28 1198

2.3. Microtransit
Through local partnerships, South Lake Tahoe piloted a dynamic fixed-route shuttle in 2018 and a new microtransit pilot will be deployed in July 2022. Microtransit is a form of public transit in which real-time, dynamic routing pairs passengers traveling along the same path, matches passengers with the best vehicle for that shared journey, and directs passengers and drivers dynamically to the best virtual stop. Passengers can request a ride through an app or by calling ahead.

2.3.1 Dynamic Fixed-Route Shuttle Pilot, 2018
In 2018, the League to Save Lake Tahoe and Chariot, a former on-demand transportation company owned by Ford, teamed to provide a dynamic fixed-route shuttle pilot for three months starting in July. The service was supported by the Lake Tahoe Visitors Authority, the Lodging Association, and the Chamber of Commerce. While branded as a “microtransit” service, the service followed a fixed-route that mostly ran along US 50 connecting the Stateline casino corridor with Lakeview Commons.

Ridership did not meet expectations, averaging 200 rides per month. Ridership was most affected by significant events in the region (such as the American Century Celebrity Golf Tournament), changes in marketing, as well as reduced fees. It was utilized heavily on weekends but minimally during weekdays due to its late start hour of 9 am. The pilot faced significant challenges around its poorly functioning technology, app failures, minimal marketing and outreach, high ETAs, and lack of reliability on Chariot’s part.

Existing Conditions and Transit Gaps Report, City of South Lake Tahoe - 29 1199

2.3.2 South Shore Microtransit Pilot, July 2022
The South Shore Transportation Management Association (SS/TMA), TTD, and a private operator will be piloting a new on-demand microtransit service starting July 2022. The South Shore Microtransit Zone will cover the eastern half of South Lake Tahoe, expanding transit coverage to Al Tahoe and Heavenly Mountain Resort and covering 10,000 residents (half of the City’s population), and 6,000 jobs. It is expected to run every day from 7am to 9pm, with a fleet size of 4 vehicles (of which 2 are WAVs), an estimated daily capacity of 360, and targeted ETAs of 15 minutes. The service has potential to improve access to transit within the service zone, but will not significantly reduce travel times for trips that require a transfer for destinations outside the service zone.

Figure 22. South Shore Microtransit Zone
Existing Conditions and Transit Gaps Report, City of South Lake Tahoe - 30 1200

3. Rider Experience

3.1. Convenience
Convenience of public transportation is essential to a pleasant rider experience. In fact, a 2020 survey has found that riders rank convenience as the highest priority when choosing transit, and it can be an indicator of public transit’s competitiveness with driving. To evaluate convenience, we looked at multiple factors that affect the passenger experience, such as travel times, service frequency, walk distance, affordability, real-time information, bus stop amenities, and hours of service.

Users who take Route 50 will likely find it to be a more convenient service than Route 55. It has a higher service frequency and runs through a high-density and high-traffic corridor with lots of activity. Stops along this route tend to have relatively good amenities, such as a bench and/or shelter, and pedestrian infrastructure leading up to the bus stops. Additionally, between US 50/Al Tahoe Blvd (US Bank) and the South Y Transit Center, where Routes 50 and 55 overlap, there is an even higher effective frequency (on average, about 22 minutes).

Route 55, on the other hand, is less frequent and runs through primarily residential communities.

Many stops along this route have basic to no amenities, and can be inaccessible to pedestrians as there is inadequate pedestrian infrastructure.

However, on-time performance for Route 50 is relatively low, and lack of widespread coverage means that riders will sometimes have to walk long distances to get to and from their bus stop.

Further, service stops at 5pm for Route 55 and 7:40pm for Route 50, which means riders traveling late at night will need alternate means of transportation.

Overall, both routes remain noncompetitive with driving. Relatively lower frequency and lack of amenities on Route 55, reliability issues on Route 50, and distance to a bus stop in some neighborhoods may cause the fixed-route service to be inconvenient for some riders.

Regardless of route taken, service is fare-free. Users can easily plan their trip ahead of time by checking Google Maps or the Transit app, where they can track buses in real time, which may alleviate some of the inconvenience associated with a late bus.

Existing Conditions and Transit Gaps Report, City of South Lake Tahoe - 31 1201

3.2. Connectivity and Travel Time
Transit travel times tend to be relatively high to/from most points of interest (POIs) in South Lake Tahoe. The following chart shows the percentage of South Lake Tahoe residents who can reach each listed POI within variable timeframes on a combination of fixed-route transit and walking.5 Less than 50% of the population can access these POIs within 30 minutes, while few POIs are accessible within 60 minutes by all South Lake Tahoe residents.

Figure 23. Percentage of South Lake Tahoe residents that can access points of interest within 15, 30, 45 and 60 minutes.
5 Weekday 9:00 AM departure time.

Existing Conditions and Transit Gaps Report, City of South Lake Tahoe - 32 1202
By highlighting transit access to the South Y Center, the map below further illustrates how most of the South Lake Tahoe population has a 30 minute travel time or more to most POIs.

Figure 24. Travel time from South Y Transit Center via transit at 9:00 on a weekday.

Existing Conditions and Transit Gaps Report, City of South Lake Tahoe - 33 1203

3.3. Walkability
Pedestrian infrastructure leading to bus stops vary by route. The bus stops on Route 50 are along US Hwy 50, which have high foot and vehicular traffic, and these roads are paved with adequate pedestrian infrastructure—such as protected pedestrian crossings, sidewalks, and lighting. Bus stops on Route 55 are located on arterial roads, which often have poor pedestrian infrastructure.

Figure 25. Pedestrian infrastructure along US 50.

Figure 26. Bus stop along Route 55. There is no sidewalk.

Existing Conditions and Transit Gaps Report, City of South Lake Tahoe - 34 1204

3.4. Ease of use
Passengers can plan out their trip using the TTD website, which allows them to enter their origin address, destination address, their desired time of departure/arrival, and choose between “best trip,” “less walking,” and “fewer transfers.” It takes users to Google Maps, where the best route is mapped according to the user’s preferences. Departure and arrival times are updated in real-time, so users can plan out their trips in advance to minimize wait time. Real-time information is also available on the Transit app. Additionally, users can go to the TTD Twitter page, which informs users in real-time of any reduced service and rerouting.

3.5. Accessibility
TTD’s door-to-door paratransit service provides accessibility for riders who have mobility challenges that prevent their ability to use the fixed-route bus system. Further, the planned microtransit service in the eastern half of South Lake Tahoe may also increase accessibility for those who are unable to walk to/from a fixed-route bus stop or board/alight the bus without assistance.

3.6. Passenger Facilities
Physical amenities and passenger facilities are an important component of the passenger experience. The following map shows stops on the 22, 50, and 55 categorized by the availability of amenities: none, bench only, bench + shelter, and transit center. Most of the bus stops with both benches and shelters can be found on the main US 50 corridor, while those with inadequate passenger facilities can be found on Route 55, and on arterial roads.

Figure 27. Map of categorized bus stop amenities.

Existing Conditions and Transit Gaps Report, City of South Lake Tahoe - 35 1205
Figure 28. Bus stop at Julie Lane and B St on the 55. This bus stop has neither a bench nor a shelter.

The 2016 passenger survey conducted for the 2017 Short Range Transit Plan asked survey respondents to rate their satisfaction with the condition of certain amenities at their bus stops. Most respondents rated the signage, shelter and the quality of lighting at their stops “good” (an equivalent of 4 out of 5 stars.)
Figure 29. Customer satisfaction survey from 2017
Existing Conditions and Transit Gaps Report, City of South Lake Tahoe - 36 1206

3.7. Perception
Survey respondents in the TTD Short-Range Transit Plan Customer Satisfaction Survey have generally positive views of their experience on TTD. A majority of respondents indicated that safety, parking, and walking distance to their bus stops were “good” or “excellent.” 72% of riders surveyed rated their overall satisfaction with TTD staff “good” or “excellent,” and 52% of riders were either “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with their overall TTD experience.

This survey collected responses solely from bus riders. Our forthcoming survey intends to gain insight into perception of TTD service from not only current users but also non-users to understand their perceptions of TTD and why they might not be using it.

3.8. Affordability
TTD has been offering fare-free service since April 12, 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

TTD has secured sufficient grant funding to keep fares free until May 31, 2022, after which its continuity is entirely dependent on the availability of funding.

Prior to the pandemic, each fixed-route ride was a flat $2 fare (with the option to get an all-day pass for $5.) Paratransit service was $3 for a ride within the 1-mile buffer zone, and $6 for any trip originating or terminating within the extended service area (see Section 5.4 Accessibility). 4 Fixed-Asset Management
Currently, TTD’s bus fleet is housed in a maintenance facility located at 1663, 1669 and 1679 Shop Street in South Lake Tahoe (close to the airport). The facility is owned by the City and leased to TTD.

It is currently at capacity, and TTD is looking to build a new facility to accommodate its growing fleet in Zephyr Cove. If TTD were to move, the facility could potentially be used to house microtransit vehicles.

Further, TTD has acquired three Proterra electric buses, as well as several electric retrofitted cutaway buses, which require charging infrastructure that cannot be installed at the current maintenance and storage due to high water issues. Charging infrastructure will be located at Lake Tahoe Community College, which is about a 15 minute drive from the current storage and maintenance facility (assuming regular traffic). Having charging infrastructure at a different location than storage will increase deadhead for the overall service. TTD is interested in potentially installing charging infrastructure at the proposed facility in Zephyr Cove to address this issue.

Existing Conditions and Transit Gaps Report, City of South Lake Tahoe - 37 1207

South Lake Tahoe City CouncilJune 21, 2022

South Lake Tahoe City Council
June 21, 2022